When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[BreadOfLife]

Tom,

I gave you the reason why the RCC, Wycliffe and Calvin were wrong on the perpetual virginity of Mary, but you are not listening. Here it is again:

As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, 'Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?”'

Oz

Looks like you didn't R*E*A*D post #718 . . .

 

[OzSpen]

Gotquestions.org is a website run by Protestant, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational people. Of course they are going to be anti-Catholic. It comes with a decided agenda to refute RC theology!!

Tom,

Here you have committed a genetic logical fallacy. Your genetic fallacy, a fallacy of reasoning, is based on what Tom sees as a defect in the origin of a claim, i.e. GotQuestions.org is a Protestant, evangelical, fundamental, non-denominational website. What you have done with this fallacy is:

1. The origin of a claim about the perpetual virginity of Mary is from a Protestant, evangelical source;
2. The claim is wrong because of that source.

This sort of reasoning is erroneous or fallacious because blaming the source does not deal with the evidence for the issue. In the link I gave above it gave the example of, 'Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong'.

Of course there are examples where the origin of a claim is more relevant to its being true or false when, for example, a reliable expert in a field is more likely to be correct than a person with little expertise. I have had 5 open heart (valve replacement) surgeries. I would trust my cardiac surgeon's knowledge on the need for a valve replacement than the knowledge of a lay person because of his expertise in these matters.

However, to claim that denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary is wrong because it comes from a Protestant, evangelical site, avoids the issue of the evidence. Tom committed a genetic logical fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when Tom does this.

Oz

 

[BreadOfLife]

Tom,

Here you have committed a genetic logical fallacy. Your genetic fallacy, a fallacy of reasoning, is based on what Tom sees as a defect in the origin of a claim, i.e. GotQuestions.org is a Protestant, evangelical, fundamental, non-denominational website. What you have done with this fallacy is:

1. The origin of a claim about the perpetual virginity of Mary is from a Protestant, evangelical source;
2. The claim is wrong because of that source.

This sort of reasoning is erroneous or fallacious because blaming the source does not deal with the evidence for the issue. In the link I gave above it gave the example of, 'Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong'.

Of course there are examples where the origin of a claim is more relevant to its being true or false when, for example, a reliable expert in a field is more likely to be correct than a person with little expertise. I have had 5 open heart (valve replacement) surgeries. I would trust my cardiac surgeon's knowledge on the need for a valve replacement than the knowledge of a lay person because of his expertise in these matters.

However, to claim that denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary is wrong because it comes from a Protestant, evangelical site, avoids the issue of the evidence. Tom committed a genetic logical fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when Tom does this.

Oz

WRONG.

Actually - it's not the source that is the problem.
It is the fact that the source has it wrong when explaining Catholic teaching.

gotquestions.org is an anti-Catholic site. What makes it anti-Catholic is NOT the fact that it disagrees with Catholic teaching - but that it purposely misrepresents Catholic teaching. This fact disqualifies them as a reputable source.

 

[OzSpen]

First of all - who is "screaming"??
When I "scream" - i use exclamations points (!!!).

Secondly - no, I didn't get my quotes from EWTN, but I'm sure this is ONE source.
In case you haven't noticed, the internet has MANY sources.

Finally, as to the "other" children of Mary - there is simply NO Scriptural support for this, as I have amply shown.
I have even illustrated that these "Adelphoi" of Jesus were some other relation and not uterine siblings. They are the children of the "other Mary" at the foot of the cross (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40 )

This other Mary is said to be the "sister" (Adephe) of Jesus' mother. Since we know that Jewish Tradition forbids giving 2 children the same name, we can illustrates without a doubt that this "other Mary" is NOT the uterine sibling of Mary, the mother of Jesus but some other relation.

So, if you want to prove that Mary had other children - you'll have to do MUCH better that that . . .

BreadOfLife,

Please learn internet etiquette. When you enlarge the font and place it in bold, it is considered to be screaming at the audience. Please read, 'Large, red and bold: Is this shouting too?' You chose blue instead of red, but it is shouting, nonetheless.

I cited Matt 13:55:56 (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? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Here is the scriptural support for the other children, brothers and sisters, of Jesus. The brothers (adelphoi) are named as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, but the sisters (adelphe) are not named. The origin of his brothers (whether by Joseph and Mary after Jesus' birth; step brothers of Jesus, etc), in my view, has not been determined in any definitive way.

Some commentators consider them to be sons and daughters to Joseph and Mary, born later than Jesus' birth. Others think of these brothers and sisters as from a previous marriage by Joseph. We know from a verse such as Mark 6:3 (ESV) that Jesus is called 'the son of Mary', but it again states that Jesus is the 'brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon'.

I find nothing in Scripture to confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Let's deal with biblical evidence and not tradition, whether RC or Protestant.

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

Why, in most of your posts do you keep referring to the importance of adherence to "The Book"??
Where is that in the Bible??

we are called to "fulfill the law" through Grace, God does nothing on earth without first letting the prophets know, etc. My Bible engine is down at the moment, sorry. One should adhere to the Word, but the Word will never violate the Book.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I gave you the reason why the RCC, Wycliffe and Calvin were wrong on the perpetual virginity of Mary, but you are not listening. Here it is again:

As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, 'Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?”'

Oz

Are we to ignore The Protoevangelium of James written in 150 AD? I know you will because it doesn't fit your theory 1900 years later. The Origin of Alexandria's commentary on Matthew 10:17 written in 249 AD? He is wrong because______________????? I could go on and on throughout history and quote some of the greatest Christian theologians/teachers of the Christian Church to rebut your theory but you have decided you are right and everyone else is wrong.

So, once again, what makes your interpretation right(?) and the historical writings and interpretations of The Protoevangelium of James, Origin of Alexandria, Wycliffe and Calvin (who you love to quote on your website when they agree with your personal doctrine) wrong??

You say they contradict scripture but you also preach reading scripture using Hermeneutics. Are you now taking scripture literally?

If you are taking scripture literally then why don't you take John 6: 51-58 or Luke 22:19 literally?

 

[OzSpen]

Are we to ignore The Protoevangelium of James written in 150 AD? I know you will because it doesn't fit your theory 1900 years later. The Origin of Alexandria's commentary on Matthew 10:17 written in 249 AD? He is wrong because______________????? I could go on and on throughout history and quote some of the greatest Christian theologians/teachers of the Christian Church to rebut your theory but you have decided you are right and everyone else is wrong.

So, once again, what makes your interpretation right(?) and the historical writings and interpretations of The Protoevangelium of James, Origin of Alexandria, Wycliffe and Calvin (who you love to quote on your website when they agree with your personal doctrine) wrong??

You say they contradict scripture but you also preach reading scripture using Hermeneutics. Are you now taking scripture literally?

If you are taking scripture literally then why don't you take John 6: 51-58 or Luke 22:19 literally?

None of the church fathers come with the authority of Scripture. It is 'all Scripture' that 'is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

This verse does not begin with 'all Scripture, early church fathers, RC popes and Protestant leaders produce writings that are theopneustos - breathed out by God'.

Christian theologians throughout history who promote teachings that do not agree with Scripture are to be rejected. That includes your teaching and mine as well.

You again commit a red herring fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Bye, bye,
Oz opcorn:

 

[BreadOfLife]

we are called to "fulfill the law" through Grace, God does nothing on earth without first letting the prophets know, etc. My Bible engine is down at the moment, sorry. One should adhere to the Word, but the Word will never violate the Book.

What is "The Book" - and where does the Bible tell me about this "Book"??
And, you're wrong about the other thing. JESUS fulfilled the Law - NOT us (Matt. 5:17).

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife,

Please learn internet etiquette. When you enlarge the font and place it in bold, it is considered to be screaming at the audience. Please read, 'Large, red and bold: Is this shouting too?' You chose blue instead of red, but it is shouting, nonetheless.

I cited Matt 13:55:56 (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? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Here is the scriptural support for the other children, brothers and sisters, of Jesus. The brothers (adelphoi) are named as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, but the sisters (adelphe) are not named. The origin of his brothers (whether by Joseph and Mary after Jesus' birth; step brothers of Jesus, etc), in my view, has not been determined in any definitive way.

Some commentators consider them to be sons and daughters to Joseph and Mary, born later than Jesus' birth. Others think of these brothers and sisters as from a previous marriage by Joseph. We know from a verse such as Mark 6:3 (ESV) that Jesus is called 'the son of Mary', but it again states that Jesus is the 'brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon'.

I find nothing in Scripture to confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Let's deal with biblical evidence and not tradition, whether RC or Protestant.

Oz

And Biblical evidence is ALL I have presented to prove you wrong. I presented the fact that Adelphos(oi) does NOT necessarily mean uterine sibling.
I showed that in MOST cases in the NT - Adelphos(oi) does NOT mean uterine sibling.

The fact of the matter is that there is ZERO biblical evidence that Mary had other children. Provide ONE verse that makes the claim that Mary had other children and I will concede defeat. Since YOU are making the claim - the onus is on YOU to prove it.

I even went so far as to say that if ANY of you who believe that Mary had other children can show me even a non-biblical tradition that speaks of her other children - I would concede defeat. If you are correct - this should be easy for you.


PS - when a poster starts complaining about the formatting style of his opponent, it usually means that his argument has run OUT of steam . . .

 

[OzSpen]

And Biblical evidence is ALL I have presented to prove you wrong. I presented the fact that Adelphos(oi) does NOT necessarily mean uterine sibling.
I showed that in MOST cases in the NT - Adelphos(oi) does NOT mean uterine sibling.

The fact of the matter is that there is ZERO biblical evidence that Mary had other children. Provide ONE verse that makes the claim that Mary had other children and I will concede defeat. Since YOU are making the claim - the onus is on YOU to prove it.

I even went so far as to say that if ANY of you who believe that Mary had other children can show me even a non-biblical tradition that speaks of her other children - I would concede defeat. If you are correct - this should be easy for you.


PS - when a poster starts complaining about the formatting style of his opponent, it usually means that his argument has run OUT of steam . . .

Provide me with biblical evidence that Jesus did not have bothers and sisters and I'll concede defeat. I've provided evidence to counter your view.

When I complain about your shouting on an internet forum, it has zero to do with conceding defeat but bringing to your attention the need for etiquette when we speak to one another online.

 

[BreadOfLife]

None of the church fathers come with the authority of Scripture. It is 'all Scripture' that 'is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

This verse does not begin with 'all Scripture, early church fathers, RC popes and Protestant leaders produce writings that are theopneustos - breathed out by God'.

Christian theologians throughout history who promote teachings that do not agree with Scripture are to be rejected. That includes your teaching and mine as well.

You again commit a red herring fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Bye, bye,
Oz opcorn:

Can you show me one single verse of Scripture that states that Scripture is our final authority??
I can show you verses that make this claim about the Church - but not about Scripture . . .

[SIZE=10pt]Matt 16:18-19 [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]- Jesus told Peter that WHATEVER he ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Matt. 18:15-18 -[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Jesus told Apostles that WHATEVER he ordained on earth would [/SIZE]also [SIZE=10pt]be ordained in Heaven.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]2 Thess 2:15 - Paul [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]tells his readers to stand firm in the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]TRADITIONS[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] they taught -[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] WHETHER [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]by oral statement [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]OR [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]by letter[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Luke 10:16 [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]- Jesus tells hid disciples that whoever listens to THEM or rejects THEM - listens to HIM or rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Eph. 1:22-23 - Paul refers to the Church the FULLNESS of Christ.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Scripture is the written Word of God and is Authoritative - but NOWHERE does it claim to be our SOLE Authority.[/SIZE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

Provide me with biblical evidence that Jesus did not have bothers and sisters and I'll concede defeat. I've provided evidence to counter your view.

When I complain about your shouting on an internet forum, it has zero to do with conceding defeat but bringing to your attention the need for etiquette when we speak to one another online.

I already HAVE brought for my evidence about ten times.
However, if you insist on reading it again, here goes . . .

The normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning. It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews, neighbors and kinsmen alike. The Aramaic word, “ach”, encompasses the meanings for brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman.

Furthermore, there was no term for the word “cousin” in the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the centuries before the birth of Christ (the Septuagint), the words “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used in places where “ach” was. This is why we have many examples in the Septuagint of the following:

In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was Abraham’s nephew (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" 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 "brethren”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

As to the names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas) in the following passages (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5) - the “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being their mother.. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25). Since know by Jewish tradition that 2 siblings cannot have the same name - this "other Mary" is some other kind of relation.

What does the BIBLE have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says:
"…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states:
"There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states:
"But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – and not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

YOUR move . . .

 

[OzSpen]

Can you show me one single verse of Scripture that states that Scripture is our final authority??
I can show you verses that make this claim about the Church - but not about Scripture . . .

[SIZE=10pt]Matt 16:18-19 [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]- Jesus told Peter that WHATEVER he ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Matt. 18:15-18 -[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Jesus told Apostles that WHATEVER he ordained on earth would [/SIZE]also [SIZE=10pt]be ordained in Heaven.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]2 Thess 2:15 - Paul [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]tells his readers to stand firm in the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]TRADITIONS[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] they taught -[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] WHETHER [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]by oral statement [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]OR [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]by letter[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Luke 10:16 [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]- Jesus tells hid disciples that whoever listens to THEM or rejects THEM - listens to HIM or rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Eph. 1:22-23 - Paul refers to the Church the FULLNESS of Christ.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Scripture is the written Word of God and is Authoritative - but NOWHERE does it claim to be our SOLE Authority.[/SIZE]

Are you so blind that you cannot see that 'all Scripture' that comes with the authority of being breathed out by the perfect Lord God who has absolute, sovereign authority of the universe has less authority than the early church fathers and popes?

N T Wright wrote an article, 'How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?' In his conclusion, Wright wrote an excellent summary of scriptural authority:

I have argued that the notion of the ‘authority of scripture’ is a shorthand expression for God’s authority, exercised somehow through scripture; that scripture must be allowed to be itself in exercising its authority, and not be turned into something else which might fit better into what the church, or the world, might have thought its ‘authority’ should look like; that it is therefore the meaning of ‘authority’ itself, not that of scripture, that is the unknown in the equation, and that when this unknown is discovered it challenges head on the various notions and practices of authority endemic in the world and, alas, in the church also.

Seems to me that your push for the authority of the church violates God's authority that is exercised through Scripture.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I already HAVE brought for my evidence about ten times.
However, if you insist on reading it again, here goes . . .

The normal Greek words for “brother(s) “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used much more liberally than the normal meaning. It was applied to cousins, uncles, nephews, neighbors and kinsmen alike. The Aramaic word, “ach”, encompasses the meanings for brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman.

Furthermore, there was no term for the word “cousin” in the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the centuries before the birth of Christ (the Septuagint), the words “adelphos” and “adelphoi” were used in places where “ach” was. This is why we have many examples in the Septuagint of the following:

In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was Abraham’s nephew (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" 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 "brethren”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

As to the names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas) in the following passages (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5) - the “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being their mother.. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25). Since know by Jewish tradition that 2 siblings cannot have the same name - this "other Mary" is some other kind of relation.

What does the BIBLE have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56 says:
"…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states:
"There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states:
"But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – and not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

YOUR move . . .

I happen to teach NT Greek, so I'm more than familiar with the lexicon and word study meanings of adelphoi (brothers) and adelphe (sisters).

Bye, Bye,
Oz :wub:

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I gave you the reason why the RCC, Wycliffe and Calvin were wrong on the perpetual virginity of Mary, but you are not listening. Here it is again:

As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, 'Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?”'

Oz

Ooooops......Somebody forgot to answer the other question in my post (that you only partially quoted).

QUOTE FROM OzSpen's SOURCE 'Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary' (page 227):

Likewise Luther was true to Catholic tradition on the virginity. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin". "Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact". That Mary lost her virginity after the child's birth, he thought a thing to be never said or thought. Luther interpreted Is. 7:14 in the sense of a prophecy of the virgin birth and he inveighed against Helvidious. In the commentary on the Magnificent he extolled Mary's virginity. (written in 1521 which was AFTER he left the RCC)

It looks like OzSpen source agrees with BreadOfLife's source. OzSpen! Does your source have a decided agenda to promote RC theology?

 

[tom55]

None of the church fathers come with the authority of Scripture. It is 'all Scripture' that 'is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

This verse does not begin with 'all Scripture, early church fathers, RC popes and Protestant leaders produce writings that are theopneustos - breathed out by God'.

Christian theologians throughout history who promote teachings that do not agree with Scripture are to be rejected. That includes your teaching and mine as well.

You again commit a red herring fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Bye, bye,
Oz opcorn:

I agree with you OZSPEN: "None of the church fathers come with the authority of Scripture." Did I ever say that? If I did then please quote me. (you can't so lets move on)

I am simply using historical Christian writings and the Church Fathers to re-affirm what The Church teaches which is what I believe also. (The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth)

You know how that works? Right? You use The Church Fathers to back up your beliefs: https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/category/church/church-fathers/

Here is a quote from you on your website that I agree with and will act upon: "Let’s examine some of the evidence from church history."

What I have written is simply proving, with evidence from church history, that scripture (written 2,000 years ago) matches up with The Protoevangelium of James (written 1,900 years ago) which matches up with The Origin of Alexandria's commentary (written 1,800 years ago) which matches up with other Church Fathers and Doctors of The Church (Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine) which matches up with what the RCC still teaches today and is opposite of what you believe. I have scripture, the Church Fathers/Doctors and 2,000 years of church history on my side. Should we throw out church history since it disagrees with your belief?

The teaching that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is a recent theory. Why is it so hard to believe that she took a vow of celibacy in service to God?

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Here you have committed a genetic logical fallacy. Your genetic fallacy, a fallacy of reasoning, is based on what Tom sees as a defect in the origin of a claim, i.e. GotQuestions.org is a Protestant, evangelical, fundamental, non-denominational website. What you have done with this fallacy is:

1. The origin of a claim about the perpetual virginity of Mary is from a Protestant, evangelical source;
2. The claim is wrong because of that source.

This sort of reasoning is erroneous or fallacious because blaming the source does not deal with the evidence for the issue. In the link I gave above it gave the example of, 'Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong'.

Of course there are examples where the origin of a claim is more relevant to its being true or false when, for example, a reliable expert in a field is more likely to be correct than a person with little expertise. I have had 5 open heart (valve replacement) surgeries. I would trust my cardiac surgeon's knowledge on the need for a valve replacement than the knowledge of a lay person because of his expertise in these matters.

However, to claim that denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary is wrong because it comes from a Protestant, evangelical site, avoids the issue of the evidence. Tom committed a genetic logical fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when Tom does this.

Oz

Quote: "Some of the RCC doctrines that are contrary to biblical Christianity have been exposed over and over."

YOU then reference a anti-Catholic website to prove you are right and Catholic teachings wrong? Weird!

Using your logic I present to you websites that exposes Protestant doctrines that are contrary to biblical Christianity have been exposed over and over:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/was-mary-a-perpetual-virgin

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/marys-perpetual-virginity

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html

Now, using your logic, I am right and you are wrong. :wub:

 

[bbyrd009]

lol. toss 'em both, imo

 

[tom55]

since virtually all of these 23 western and smaller eastern rites are in union with the Pope , there is actually one Catholic Church, not 242 churches or denominations. Based on the encyclopedia's own definition of "denomination" the editors appear to be separating and counting by country which is how you get to 242 (or 238 countries plus 4) "denominations" of Roman Catholics.

The Catholic Church in Canada is not a different "denomination" from the Catholic Church in the U.S., which is not a different Catholic Church from the one in England, etc. If you search the available "World Christian Database" online, there is indeed one Catholic Church in the U.S.A., (see also Barrett, Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 783 for the U.S.A.) and in the world there are indeed 238 "Roman Catholic" denominations (for exactly 238 countries), i.e. one Catholic Church for each country. The same "counting by country" seems to be the case with some of the denominations in the other mega-blocs.

When dividing these "denominations" by country as they do, there are definitely some problems in figuring out the true total "denominations" since many of them are being counted more than once -- and in fact 241 times too much in the case of "Roman Catholic" denominations. Barrett's Encyclopedia states this explicitly:

“As a statistical unit in this Encyclopedia, a 'denomination' always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world's 238 countries.” (Barrett, et al, World Christian Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 27, in the "Glossary" under definition for "Denomination" [later updated to 242], emphasis added)

How dishonest...

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm#Catholics

ZING.........

 

[BreadOfLife]

I happen to teach NT Greek, so I'm more than familiar with the lexicon and word study meanings of adelphoi (brothers) and adelphe (sisters).

Bye, Bye,
Oz :wub:

Translation:
"I have absolutely no valid response for the evidence you presented regarding the use of Adelphoi and Adelphe."


That's what I thought.
The conversation always ends here with anti-Catholic Protestants because there is just no way around the Scriptural, linguistic and historical facts.