Mother of James?

[DNB]

We've been down this road before, so I don't know why you're asking this question again because my answer will be the SAME.

The Catholic Chirch doesn't teach that ONLY Catholics will be saved. We are saved by what Jesus did - but, we are saved THROUGH His Body - His Church. This is the official Catholic teaching on the matter:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

So, are you equating 'The Church' with the catholic church?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Meaning, that not everyone that appears to do good works and deeds, or that behaves in a particular manner, is necessarily saved.
It goes without saying that countless atheists, Buddhists, Muslims and so forth, act much better than many Christians. In this context, Christ's exhortation was advice, not a rule, nor a definition. Appearances are deceptive, many do good works but for the wrong reasons, while others may do the wrong thing but for the right reason.
Yes, when one understands righteousness and behaves accordingly, it is a great service to all for him to expose his good deeds. But, again, this does not make everyone who appears to be sanctified in their behaviour, as truly being so.
Thus, not every Church-goer, catholic, eastern, or protestant, is saved.

Your statement above ib RED is corret.
However - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Matt. 5:14-16.

Jesus was telling his followers that they were the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He had just finished teaching them the Beatitudes - which are about how to serve God by serving your fellow man. Their examples should be PUBLIC and open so as to spread His light all over the world.

THAT is the message here - not YOUR fallacy that Christ's Church should be "hidden" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, are you equating 'The Church' with the catholic church?

How many "Churches" do YOU believe that Jesus built?

While you're thinkng of how to answer that question - do you believe that He built NEW "Churches" in and after the 16th century because His original on failed?

 

[DNB]

Your statement above ib RED is corret.
However - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Matt. 5:14-16.

Jesus was telling his followers that they were the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He had just finished teaching them the Beatitudes - which are about how to serve God by serving your fellow man. Their examples should be PUBLIC and open so as to spread His light all over the world.

THAT is the message here - not YOUR fallacy that Christ's Church should be "hidden" . . .

...not should be hidden, not at all. It is, rather, due to unfortunate circumstances that it has become hidden. That is, because the Apostle's Gospel tradition has become so perverted by charlatans and simpletons who have infiltrated the Church at a very early stage in its history, we cannot find anywhere that has the unadulterated Word of God. Let one's light shine, that's a great testimony, but, categorically, it will not be shining within the whole denomination, nor the entire congregation, nor all the leaders, or the congregants.

One pure church does not exist anywhere. You cannot point here, or there, and claim that that is where Apostolic succession has been retained since its inception. Thus, those that are saved, their exact identity, is not possible to determine. Some are obvious, some are not, some are what you may least expect. The full bride of Christ, in its entirety, cannot be defined by location, Church, congregation, priest nor laity.

 

[DNB]

How many "Churches" do YOU believe that Jesus built?

While you're thinkng of how to answer that question - do you believe that He built NEW "Churches" in and after the 16th century because His original on failed?

You're evading the question. Is the Catholic church, who has its capital in Vatican City, and that has the Bishop of Rome (pope) its vicar of Christ, the one and only Christ ordained entity that bears his name? And, that all who adhere to the pontiffs dogma, are saved?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You're evading the question. Is the Catholic church, who has its capital in Vatican City, and that has the Bishop of Rome (pope) its vicar of Christ, the one and only Christ ordained entity that bears his name? And, that all who adhere to the pontiffs dogma, are saved?

I couldn't tell you WHO is saved because that is between each individual and GOD.
You anti-Catholics like to go around indicating who is saved and who is not - and it's NOT your call.

As for Christ's ONE Church, AGAIN:
How many "Churches" do YOU believe that Jesus built?
I belong to the ONE He built.

 

[BreadOfLife]

...not should be hidden, not at all. It is, rather, due to unfortunate circumstances that it has become hidden. That is, because the Apostle's Gospel tradition has become so perverted by charlatans and simpletons who have infiltrated the Church at a very early stage in its history, we cannot find anywhere that has the unadulterated Word of God. Let one's light shine, that's a great testimony, but, categorically, it will not be shining within the whole denomination, nor the entire congregation, nor all the leaders, or the congregants.

One pure church does not exist anywhere. You cannot point here, or there, and claim that that is where Apostolic succession has been retained since its inception. Thus, those that are saved, their exact identity, is not possible to determine. Some are obvious, some are not, some are what you may least expect. The full bride of Christ, in its entirety, cannot be defined by location, Church, congregation, priest nor laity.

Then YOU don't believe in Jesus Christ OR His promises.
He guaranteed that His Church would NOT sussumb to the gates of Hell - but YOU claim it DID.

Christ's Church IS perfect because it IS Christ (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18).
INDIVIDUALS within His Church are not . . .

 

[DNB]

I couldn't tell you WHO is saved because that is between each individual and GOD.
You anti-Catholics like to go around indicating who is saved and who is not - and it's NOT your call.

As for Christ's ONE Church, AGAIN:
How many "Churches" do YOU believe that Jesus built?
I belong to the ONE He built.

You just contradicted yourself. You first claimed, correctly, that salvation is at an individual level, then you said that you belong to the singular, Christ-ordained church.
My question again, does this church have a name or a location?
I am saying that one can never tell where the truly saved are, for there are some in all denominations, churches and congregations. You will never be able to define them at anything larger than the individual. That is what I meant by hidden - not geographically located.

 

[DNB]

Then YOU don't believe in Jesus Christ OR His promises.
He guaranteed that His Church would NOT sussumb to the gates of Hell - but YOU claim it DID.

Christ's Church IS perfect because it IS Christ (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18).
INDIVIDUALS within His Church are not . . .

No, I'm saying that Christ has fulfilled his promise, but you can't define it by denomination. It exists all over the world, throughout history, but is never circumscribed by location, church or creed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You just contradicted yourself. You first claimed, correctly, that salvation is at an individual level, then you said that you belong to the singular, Christ-ordained church.
My question again, does this church have a name or a location?
I am saying that one can never tell where the truly saved are, for there are some in all denominations, churches and congregations. You will never be able to define them at anything larger than the individual. That is what I meant by hidden - not geographically located.

I didn't "conradict" myself at all.
Salvation IS between an individual and God - but it is THROUGH His Church.

Being a member of His Church does NOT guaranteed you entrance into Heaven. Jesus warned about such people (Matt. 7:21-23).
HOWEVER - this doesn't mean that His Church is "hidden". It is quite VISIBLE - those who are true followers and those who are not.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I'm saying that Christ has fulfilled his promise, but you can't define it by denomination. It exists all over the world, throughout history, but is never circumscribed by location, church or creed.

WRONG.

Christ built ONE Church. "Denominations" were started by MEN.
Paul warned about such factions . . .
1 Cor. 3:3-4
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

This is PRECISELY what the Protestant Revolt did - "Lutherans", "Wesleyans", "Calvinists", et al.

The Catholic Church is that ONE Church that goes ALL the way back to the Apostles, It is the original tree from which Protestantism splintered - and continues to splinter to this day to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim to be "the Church".

 

[DNB]

I didn't "conradict" myself at all.
Salvation IS between an individual and God - but it is THROUGH His Church.

Being a member of His Church does NOT guaranteed you entrance into Heaven. Jesus warned about such people (Matt. 7:21-23).
HOWEVER - this doesn't mean that His Church is "hidden". It is quite VISIBLE - those who are true followers and those who are not.

So then, are there any protestants that are saved?

 

[DNB]

WRONG.

Christ built ONE Church. "Denominations" were started by MEN.
Paul warned about such factions . . .
1 Cor. 3:3-4
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

This is PRECISELY what the Protestant Revolt did - "Lutherans", "Wesleyans", "Calvinists", et al.

The Catholic Church is that ONE Church that goes ALL the way back to the Apostles, It is the original tree from which Protestantism splintered - and continues to splinter to this day to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim to be "the Church".

That's idle talk, for I am saying that judging by the doctrines alone of the Catholic church, we see that there has never been any apostolic succession in their pontificate lineage. That is a very straight-forward induction, the confessional, rosary, indulgences, purgatory, vicar of Christ, intercession of the saints, etc..., clearly display the heretical pervasion throughout its entire history.
But again BOL, I feel the same way about all denominations, at least to some degree or another, ,...Christ's church is not delineated by denomination, it transcends those man-made boundaries.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So then, are there any protestants that are saved?

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that ONLY Catholics will be saved.
I gave you the official teaching from the Catechism (Outside the Church there is No Salvation) in an earlier post that explains this in detail.

 

[DNB]

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that ONLY Catholics will be saved.
I gave you the official teaching from the Catechism (Outside the Church there is No Salvation) in an earlier post that explains this in detail.

Will you just layout the parameters, for crying out loud. How long does it take to get a straight answer from you?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Will you just layout the parameters, for crying out loud. How long does it take to get a straight answer from you?

What "parameters"?

The Catholic Church is not like the many elitist Evangelical and Calvinist sects who go around assigning salvation or damnation on everybody.
YOU asked me if any Protestants will be saved and I gave you the Church's official answer from the Catechism in post #519. Why is that NOT good enough for you??

Here it is again, in case you mised it the first time . . .

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[DNB]

What "parameters"?

The Catholic Church is not like the many elitist Evangelical and Calvinist sects who go around assigning salvation or damnation on everybody.
YOU asked me if any Protestants will be saved and I gave you the Church's official answer from the Catechism in post #519. Why is that NOT good enough for you??

Here it is again, in case you mised it the first time . . .

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Ok, so I've deduced this much, complete ignorance of Christ and of God's salvation, is grounds for extenuating on one's behalf. But, anyone else who knows the Gospel of Christ, and of the Catholic Church and the Papacy, and do not accept them as either God's institution or vicar of Christ on earth, respectively, they are damned.
Nope, the Church is hidden, as far as belonging to one creed or dogma is concerned. It is all over the world, in varied churches and denominations. Many protestants and Eastern Orthodox will be saved, many popes and Catholics will NOT be saved, it's a mixed bag of humble and penitent people from many Christian denominations and faiths.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ok, so I've deduced this much, complete ignorance of Christ and of God's salvation, is grounds for extenuating on one's behalf. But, anyone else who knows the Gospel of Christ, and of the Catholic Church and the Papacy, and do not accept them as either God's institution or vicar of Christ on earth, respectively, they are damned.
Nope, the Church is hidden, as far as belonging to one creed or dogma is concerned. It is all over the world, in varied churches and denominations. Many protestants and Eastern Orthodox will be saved, many popes and Catholics will NOT be saved, it's a mixed bag of humble and penitent people from many Christian denominations and faiths.

And you got it WRONG again.
I've explained the Church's position to you - ad nauseam - and you STILL don't get it.

I''l just have to wait for the Holy Spirit to enlighten you - not neessarily to ACCEPT the Church's position - but to give an honest response to it.

 

[DNB]

Whether that is true, or not, it would not matter here, if the context surrounding the words "brother", and "sister", in the verses in question, does not support the meaning "born of the same two parents, or only of the same father, or mother". Words have more than one meaning, because we do not just always assume it only has one whenever it is used. That is silly.



No such explicit statements are in Scripture, but that does not prove the Blessed Virgin Mary was not a perpetual virgin, because the Bible is an incomplete biographical compilation on the lives of Jesus, His family, and friends. Furthermore, there is evidence in Scripture, however weak one perceives it to be, to support Her perpetual virginity. Before I get into that, is there an explicit statement in Scripture which contradicts the notion She was a perpetual virgin, e.g., "Mary, did not remain a virgin all Her life", or "Mary, the biological mother of Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas"?



The words "brother" (ἀδελφός [Adelphos]), and "sister" (ἀδελφή, [Adelphé]), have a range of meanings. Once again you have merely assumed the meanings to be "of the same two parents", and assumed the context. That is lazy, and negligent.

You have presented very little here in the way of proof. You provide verses under the assumption that they are clearly stating support for your side, but when looked at without the heavy assumptions you make, these verses are not nearly as clear as you believe. I have been hoping you could provide better proof, or at least a stronger argument, for your position. I do not expect either of us to prove anything definitively, but you could at least attempt to present a stronger argument.

You're too biased and difficult. My ultimate point is, you are trying to profess a radical conclusion, thus, it requires a radical testimony. I am saying that anyone just taking the verses at face value, will have to conclude that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life. Brothers and sisters, unless otherwise denoted, are accepted to mean uterine siblings. The ball is in your court to prove otherwise. I gave about 4 or 5 verses (including synoptic) that strongly imply, if not assert, that Jesus had uterine brothers. All your verses take the natural sense of the word, and give it an alternative meaning, you are the one stretching the passages. Again, your view is viable, but because we both have neither unambiguous expressions to be conclusive, the default position (primary sense) should always take precedence - Hermeneutics 101.

 

[DNB]

First, in that post I could not locate your answer to the question in my previous post (see bold below). If you answered, point to where, or answer in your next reply, please.
Now, you claimed the verses you referenced are "explicit statements", not "implicit", or "unambiguous". This means your assuming the words "brother" (ἀδελφός [Adelphos]), and "sister" (ἀδελφή, [Adelphé]), in those verses to mean "of the same two parents", was not out of needing to take the "default position (primary sense)", which you claim is "Hermeneutics 101". You just merely assumed the meaning of the words, and context surrounding them. Again, that is lazy, and negligent, and I had been hoping you could provide better proof, or at least a stronger argument, for your position.
Furthermore, you appear to be confusing "primary sense" with "primary meaning". Understand, just because a certain word has a meaning more often associated with it in a certain text, that does not mean it falls under the "Literal Sense" of Hermeneutics. It is to be taken at face value when the context applies, but also multiple common meanings for one word is not considered of a lower order of Hermeneutics, as an allegory may be, because it is not a question of "hidden meanings", it is just semantics regarding the correct context.
As far as whose position is "radical", it was accepted, and taught, for centuries that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained a virgin. Therefore, I would argue the further we got away from understanding the actual time, and place written about, the easier it became for people, like you, to take things out of context, and create new "radical doctrine."
Regarding your claim I stretched the verses I referenced, see post #261, and explain how so.

Look soul, just quit your long-winded nonsense. We both now that there are only about 5 passages that explicitly speak of Mary, and any sort of relatives, in general. So, don't ask me to provide proof-text when we both know that we have discussed already, all the available and viable, verses on this matter. All you conspiracy theorists are alike, you're very verbose in both articulation and evidence, but ultimately you just go down rabbit-holes with improperly correlated passages, that should not be entertained as support-text to begin with. Plus, you have taken the inferior meaning of a word, defined by the context, and presented it as the dominant meaning in order to make your dogma.

1. Mary was betrothed to Joseph before the annunciation - she planned to be physically intimate, and raise a family, with him. For, those planning a life of celibacy and dedication to God, do not engage to marry (not open for debate).
2. Mary was informed that her cousin Elizabeth was pregnant also at such an age, and previously barren. Here, the narrator distinguishes between cousin and sister (the standard has been set).
3. Rarely does one consider cousins or indirect relatives to take precedence over one's priorities and duties, in regard to their family obligations. When Jesus refused to allow his family to divert his attention from his disciples, he answered in a manner that carried the most weight, '...who are my family, but those who do God's will...'. Refusing to address the concerns of a cousin over one's disciples, is less egregious than ignoring one' immediate family. Thus, the message duly corresponds with the rule '...he who loves family more than me, is not worthy of my Kingdom..'
4. When the Nazarenes were indignant of Jesus' assumed authority, they cited the members of his family in order to discredit his pedigree.
5. When his family asked Jesus if he was going to go to the Feast of Tabernacles, and he replied as he did, the narrators comment that '...even his own family did not believe him...' again, expresses more weight than those who do not know him as well.
6. In Galatians 1:19-19, Paul refers to James as Jesus' brother (coinciding with the enumeration of his family in Mark 6:3). Of all the people that Paul mentions in his epistles, no one else is referred to as the 'brother of the lord'. Due to its rarity and exclusivity, this is an exceptional and noteworthy title.
7. Jude is cited as one of the brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55-56, and in Jude's epistle, he claims to be the brother of James Jude 1:1. (possible corroboration).

These are all, if not explicit, the default position that anyone should have on the siblings of Jesus. One is coming from a rather esoteric position in order to prove otherwise. Meaning, that the ball is in their court. I have not altered or stretched meanings anywhere. Cousins are distinguished from sisters and brothers, and siblings are explicitly stated to be as such. Married was vowed to be married before Gabriel informed her of God's plan. Now, where the flippin' heck do you get your radical nonsense that Mary was a perpetual virgin, from?