Catholic Beliefs (Part 1)
The purpose of these posts is to clarify and reach understanding among fellow Christians to some of the issues between non-Catholics and Catholics in regards to Catholic doctrine.
We believe that tradition can blind faith if tradition is not backed by sound logic and TRUTH. Without a foundation in God's Word, error will occur, and the meaning of Christianity will be convuluded and mis-interpreted.
We will be combating some of the other outrageous attacks on Christianity (like the lies and deceit of the Da Vinci Code and others) but have come to the conclusion through much studying and research that some of the denominations of Christianity have gone astray in some of their traditions and conclusions.
This series is not intended to offend, insult, or attack anyone...but is a place to put facts as we as Christians see them and engage in a healthy debate on Christian Truth!
May the Holy Spirit guide us all and allow us to learn something new!
Part 1: The Issuse of Mary and "Perpetual" Virginity
Our question:
Why do Catholics feel a need to defend a theory about Mary's perpetual virginity that seem to serve no other purpose other than to exalt her above the fact that she was a human woman and human mother to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
The Catholic Catechism states:
Mary - "ever-virgin"
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".
They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."
THE BIBLE STATES:
Matthew 27:61
And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
Matthew 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
AND
Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
We feel that this statement should be removed immediately from the Catholic Catechism.
Mary was NOT perpetually a virgin because she gave birth to other sons!
The catechism states that there is a THIRD MARY, Mary Magdalene, the Virgin Mary, and some OTHER Mary who is the mother of James. If we check early translations, we see the words, "the other Mary" translating correctly and remaining consistent. We also find that the words in Matthew 13:55 remain the same.
Our point: What is the point of making Mary an "ever virgin"? Is it crucial to faith that there must be a third Mary in order to prove the Catholic theory of Mary's perpetual virignity correct? How is this beneficial in growing in faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ?
BUT WE UNDERSTAND HOW THIS COULD BE A PROBLEM IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRYING TO MAKE MARY INTO SOMETHING MORE THAN WHO SHE IS--- A HUMAN WOMAN & A HUMAN MOTHER!
Mary was a VERY blessed woman to have received the Holy Spirit and give birth to our Messiah. I cannot underestimate the respect I have for that fact... BUT I WILL NOT add to this pseudo-Catholic religion of worshipping Mary! She was a human and died a human death.
You do not need Mary to talk to Christ and this is blasphemous to Our Lord Jesus Christ to pray to His DEAD MOTHER, instead of coming directly to Him!
Matthew 13:55
"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?"
So, the only other argument before admitting that this doctrine IS WRONG and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO BUILDING FAITH IN OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST...is that it is a translation error. Well, every translation I have including the Greek and Latin translations state the same names as in Matthew 13:55 out of the English King James Version.
Here is some new information on the argument....
In 2002 a unique archaeological find was announced: a limestone ossuary (bone box) that may have held the remains of James the “brother” of Jesus.
The box dates to first century Palestine and is inscribed in Jesus’ native language, Aramaic, with the words “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”
New attention was drawn to the ossuary by a book titled The Brother of Jesus, by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington. Shanks is the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review; Witherington is a New Testament professor. To publicize it, the two wrote a tie-in piece in USA Today's weekend magazine, in which Witherington (the primary author) asserted:
It is possible the inscription on the ossuary--"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"--provides us with a challenge in regard to some basic Christian assumptions about James.
The Roman Catholic tradition is that Jesus' brothers and sisters actually were cousins; Orthodox Christians believe they were Joseph's children by a previous marriage. The inscription conflicts with both of those Christian traditions, in fact, for there certainly was an Aramaic word for "cousin" that could have been used in this inscription but was not.
If Jesus was the son of only Mary, and James was the son of only Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, as this inscription states. --"In the Name of the Brother," USA Weekend, April 13, 2003
Witherington's statement proved highly controversial. Though his characterization of Catholic teaching is not without problem, his assertion that there is an Aramaic word for cousin was egregious.
The Source of the ControversyThe New Testament is explicit that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Christian tradition--later infallibly affirmed by the Church--acknowledges that she remained a virgin afterwards. The great majority of Christians acknowledges this. Only the Protestant community dissents.
Fundamental fact: This is a "theory" that Mary remained a perpetual virgin!
Catholic theological reasoning really spun out of control on this one!
We wonder why people sell images of the Virgin Mary on toasted bread on E-Bay?
It is becasue of these "doctrines" that totally distract Catholics from biblical Truth!
We have no problem with James being the HALF brother of Jesus, James being a cousin of Jesus, or His full-blooded brother...but we do have a problem with making Mary into something more than she was and creating controversy that serves no purpose but to DISTRACT from the Truth told by OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST!
Not the truth Mary told because there IS NO TRUTH THAT MARY TOLD.
Give her credit where credit is due and STOP THERE.
The purpose of making Mary into a perpetual virgin and placing "stations" in the church to pray to Mary is absurd. We believe in the UN-CONTROVERSIAL biblical verse of several translations that MAKE TOTAL SENSE about Jesus having brothers by his mother Mary, and that she was a virgin at His birth and still lived a perfectly fine life as a blessed HUMAN mother giving birth to human children AFTER giving birth to our Lord Jesus Christ who was 100% MAN and 100% GOD.
Stop giving these Nimrod's like Dan Brown an easy reason to attack Christianity!
Our question:
Why do Catholics feel a need to defend a theory about Mary's perpetual virginity that seem to serve no other purpose other than to exhalt her above the fact that she was a human woman and human mother of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
Technorati: roman catholic church
posted by www.bibletruthonline.com at
8:48 AM
32 Comments:
Greetings, brother in Christ.
Yes, I agree with you that some Christian churches have gone astray; however, it is not the Catholic Church. The teachings of the Catholic Church are 100% in line with scripture. Every last one of them. Someone appears to have told you a very old heresy that dates back to the first centuries of the Church.
To sum up your objections:
1) Catholics worship Mary
2) Mary was not ever virgin, but had other children
3) There are stations for praying to Mary
First, Catholics do not worship Mary. The problem here is usually one of semantics as the word "pray" has different meanings between Catholics and non-Catholics. Non-catholics generally define "pray" to be worship. Thus, when Catholics say they "pray" to Mary, the interpretation by others outside the church is that Catholics are worshipping Mary.
To Catholics, praying to Mary means asking her to pray with/for us. This is based on the scriptures that tell us first that Mary and the saints are not dead, and that the prayers of the saints are offered to God. Many non-Catholics are quick to cite 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." But in the preceding four verses (1 Tim. 2:1-4), Paul instructs Christians to pray for each other, meaning it cannot interfere with Christ’s mediatorship: "I urge that prayers, supplications, petitions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone. . . . This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior."
We know Mary and the Saints are not dead as Mark 12:27 says "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."
We also know this exhortation to pray for others applies to the saints in heaven who, as Revelation 5:8 reveals, intercede for us by offering our prayers to God: "The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."
Regarding "brothers", as you should well know, the word brother does have four usages in the scriptures. So what other passages provide insight as to which usage is in Matthew 13:55? Note John 19:26 "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!" Jesus entrusts his mother to the disciple John. Under Jewish law of the time, this could not/would not have happened had Jesus had a brother or sister. Thus, Matt 13:55 cannot/does not mean an actual brother of Jesus and Mary was ever virgin. Proof from scripture, with no third Mary required.
I'm not sure what you are calling "stations." The walls of most Catholic Churches do show the Stations of the Cross, but these have little to do with Mary. They are for meditating on Christ.
You might consider praying the Gospels using the Rosary. Many non-catholics have come to understand Mary through praying the Rosary. Its not just for Catholics. Here's a good resource for learning how:
http://www.abcsoffaith.com/artchurch/TheRosary.htm
(If you love, read and live the Gospels, why would you mind 'PRAYING' the Gospels ?)
There's also a very good forum on Mary, where non-catholic ministers discuuss their problems with Marion beliefs at:
http://209.239.45.222/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
I look forward to your next two parts, as between us we might "clarify and reach understanding among fellow Christians to some of the issues between non-Catholics and Catholics in regards to Catholic doctrine."
Remember, most people don't hate the Catholic Church, they hate the things they've been told about the Catholic Church.
God bless...
- Timothy
By
Timothy, at 9:21 PM
Great Job Timothy! Well said and articulated.
By
Anonymous, at 10:22 PM
Timothy-
Ok, what your offering is an age old argument and is something that most non-catholics do not understand. I know that Catholics use scripture to justify praying with the saints. I understand where you're coming from. It's of my personal opinion (I think I can speak for most non-catholics) that your interpretation of those verses is an exaggerated one. No where in scripture does Paul or Peter direct or approve of anyone praying "with" the saints who have passed on. Of course Mary is alive in heaven, as are the 24 elders (Adam to Jacob).
There is absolutley no benefit to imagining you are praying with a saint in heaven, this only distracts you from focusing in on the one whom you are praying to. I see no reason to pray for those in heaven. They don't need our prayers nor do I think they are wanting them. What kind of supplication or petition are you going to make for someone in heaven (1 timothy 2:1-4)? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's safe to say that praying with or for some one in heaven is a taught action by man's exaggeration of scripture not something that the Holy Spirit will lead some one to do.
And why do you need statues, beads, and "stations" to remind you to whom and what you're praying for? Are Catholcs really that A.D.D.? (No offense to anyone with Attention Deficit Disorder, I have family who suffer from this.)
By
Adam Bomb, at 11:51 PM
Greetings, brothers...
"what your offering is an age old argument" You offer a 1600 year-old heresy, you get a 1600 year-old answer. The Helvidian Heresy, as its known, was answered for the early Christian Church by Jerome (the same Jerome who translated and assembled the Bible) around 383 A.D. You can find an English translation of Jerome's answer here:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-08.htm (non-catholic site)
Regarding "No where in scripture does Paul or Peter direct or approve of ...", are you saying that unless Paul or Peter direct or approve in writing of any action that the action is forbidden to Christians?
".. something that most non-catholics do not understand" What's hard to understand? The scriptures are fairly clear that we are to pray for one another, our asking someone to pray for us does not interfere with Christ's mediation, and the saints and Mary are alive, thus they too may pray for us without interfering in Christ's mediation.
"There is absolutley no benefit to imagining you are praying with a saint in heaven, this only distracts you from focusing in on the one whom you are praying to." That is an assumption on your part and not founded in fact or scripture. One might even define it as a teaching of man.
"I see no reason to pray for those in heaven." We agree 100% - Mary and the Saints in heaven do not need us praying for them. We need the saints praying for us. I don't know what your day-to-day existence is like, but as for me, I work and much of my day is occupied with the trivia of survival. I don't get to spend as much time praying as I'd like. How wonderful that the saints in heaven are able to pray unceasingly for fellow church members who are ill, for someone fallen away from the church, and all our needs.
"... is a taught action by man's exaggeration of scripture not something that the Holy Spirit will lead some one to do." First, the scriptures cited above are clear and simple. There is no tortured exegesis, no exaggeration. As to the Holy Spirit, why would you suggest that God's Holy Spirit would not want us to join fellow members of God's eternal church in prayer and worship? That doesn't seem "safe to say." Not at all.
"...why do you need statues, beads, and "stations..." Ah, the "doctrinal dance" appears. Ok, I'll dance a few steps more with you...
Do Catholics need statues? No, but illiterate people decades and centuries ago found them very helpful. They were a big help to an illiterate father teaching the Gospels and how to live a Christian life to his family. Recall that reading was not commonly taught in most of the world until after WW2. Quite a few non-catholic missionaries have had this "ah-hah moment" after putting a bible in the hands of illiterate gentiles. Modern Catholic churches have few statues, if any.
Do Catholics need beads? No, but they are small and handy for helping one recall where one is in their devotional prayers and meditations. Pray the Gospel once with beads and once without. Then, tell me which you prefer. (BTW, did you know that the word bead comes frome the Old English bede? Bede meant prayer.)
Do Catholics need stations of the cross? No, but they help one to recall the Gospel story of Christ's passion. The stations help us to remember the pain of the scouraging, the humiliation of Christ meeting his mother, the loss of physical stamina when Christ falls not once, but a second time. The stations help us to fall deeper in love with Christ.
BTW, the Stations of the Cross meditations are generally held on Fridays in Lent. By some coincidence, it is now Lent. Why not go by a Catholic church this Friday and verify whether the stations are of God?
God's peace upon you as you pray and discern the truth of scripture...
- Timothy
(ps. "24 elders (Adam to Jacob)" opens the doors for a possible discussion on whether non-Christians can obtain heaven without knowing Jesus. Adam and Jacob never heard the Gospel of Jesus and yet, you interpret the scriptures to say that they were saved. Hmmm....)
By
Timothy, at 8:29 PM
Hello everyone!
Here is my rebuttal on the issue of the Catholic doctrine concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary....
First:
Let me make a quick statement about heresy...(for others that might not know).
By definition heresy means: "An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member."
I am in fact, proudly speaking heresy... not to mock, or insult, but to exercise my right to do so...something that I, as a Christian, am able to do in order to find truth without fear.
Second:
Let me finalize this debate regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary.
You bring the arguments of the same Jerome who translated and assembled the Catholic Bible around 383 A.D. and I bring you the Protestant argument from a fellow faith worker from around 2006 A.D.
Jerome offers "points" about context, and lingual inconsistancies, but does not prove his side of the argument without doubt.
Jeorme fails to address some of the following points...
New Testament Evidence
(http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/2003_january.htm)
Note the following:
1.Matthew affirms that Mary was found to be with child “before [she and Joseph] came together” (Mt. 1:18). The term “came together” (from sunerchomai) includes the idea of sexual intimacy (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; see Danker, 970). The implication clearly is that ultimately, they “came together.” H.L. Ellison comments that the construction is “incompatible with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1188).
2.Matthew declares that Joseph “knew not” (i.e., was not sexually intimate with; cf. Gen. 4:1) Mary “until [heos hou] she had given birth to a son” (1:25). While the expression heos hou does not absolutely demand that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Jesus’ birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contextual considerations indicated otherwise (cf. 2 Sam. 6:23). In fact, “elsewhere in the New Testament (17:9 24:39; cf. John 9:18) the phrase (heos hou) followed by a negative always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1.42). There is no valid reason why Matthew 1:25 should be the exception.
3.In Luke 2:7, Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn” child. While the term prototokon does not demand unequivocally that Mary had other children, this term “most naturally suggests” that she did (Geldenhuys, 103). If the sustained virginity of Mary is such a crucial theological point, why did not Luke simply say that she brought forth her “only” son? That certainly would have settled the issue.
4.There are several passages that mention the siblings of Jesus (Mt. 12:46ff; 13:55-56). Catholic apologists appeal to the fact that the term “brother” (adelphos) is sometimes used in a broader, kindred sense, e.g., “cousins.” While adelphos (which literally means, “out of the same womb”) is employed loosely on occasion in some literature, in the New Testament adelphos is never used for a “cousin.” The word anepsioi signifies that relationship (cf. Col. 4:10).
Moreover, Jesus is said to have had “sisters” (Mt. 13:56 - adelphe). Why should it be assumed that Matthew’s use of “mother” was literal, but that the terms “brothers” and “sisters” were used figuratively? If “sister” is literal in Acts 23:16 (Paul’s sister), what would compel one to view the same term in a different sense in Matthew 13:56? Terry notes: “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity” (159).
5.The alleged perpetual celibate state of Joseph and Mary’s relationship is contrary to the divine ideal. Marriage, as designed by God, was intended to bring a man and woman together as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; cf. Mt. 19:5-6). Subsequent to the initial physical bonding is the responsibility to “render” to one another what is “due” – these terms expressing a sacred obligation (1 Cor. 7:3). If there is to be abstinence, it is to be by mutual concession, and that only temporarily (v. 5).
6.This issue has not been settled by either side and in light of the recent discovery of the alledged ossuary box of James that contained the inscription "James - brother of Jesus", and that the writer of that inscription could have used the Aramic word for cousin if James was Jesus' cousin. This ossuary box has scandal surrounding it and has not been proven...but it does re-kindle the 1600 year old argument that the Catholic Church has never proved if Jesus had brothers or if they were cousins. (Read the Christianity Today article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/2.42.html)
I do acknowledge the fact that the Protestant founders accepted the fact that they believed Mary was a virigin throughout her life:
A) The Protestant founders, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, and the Virigin Mary's Perpetual Virignity read here:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM
The CORE OF this debate is:
1) The doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity IS A TRADITION of the Catholic Church. The Catholics of today and yesterday have not and cannot prove the fact of perpetual virginity through Scripture. Likewise, I cannot disprove Mary's perpetual virginity through Scripture.
Again, to drive the point further....
The TRADITION of Mary's perpetual virginity is not a fact, it is a tradition.
What is the Catholic reason for believing in Mary's perpetual virginity? Is there a sound Theological reason other than to make a futile and bizarre argument :
"THAT VIRGINITY IS BETTER THAN THE MARRIED STATE"
The verse that comes to mind as a warning about traditions is:
Mark 7:7-8
7 "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
The fact is that Mary's perpetual virginity is TRADITION, TRADITIONS are of men, and TRADITIONS have the potential to lead us AWAY from our LORD.
I have met at least 5 to 7 Catholics in the last few years that have told me exactly this:
"The Virgin Mary was a Virgin throughout her life and this has been proven and has rarely
been questioned." The verses in the bible beg to differ in my opinion, but I have a big problem with people who are unable to discern traditions from Scripture and is the reason for my debate.
Evangelicals are often questioned /frowned upon for their strict LITERAL interpretation of the bible because of the belief that the bible contains translation, contextual, or liguistic inconsistencies or errors, and so they err by taking the bible literally? Isn't Jerome's argument one side of a two sided argument that has no winner also? If so, why does the Church appear to ignore this fact and teach this dogma as a Scriptural proof?
If Catholics use scripture to enforce and defend their own TRADITIONS, don't they err also?
I believe that TRADITIONS that are neither proven nor un-proven,have the potential to lead Christians away from FAITH.
I am warning both the Catholic and the Evangelicals!!
My two questions to the Catholics are:
1) Do you acknowledge the fact that Mary's Perpetual Virginity is a tradition and not a scriptural fact?
2)What is the purpose of this particular tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity?
Can any Catholic say..."Because of my belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, my faith has increased because..... OR "Because of my belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, Our Lord revealed to me...."
Can any practicing Catholic shed some light on this question by finishing these sentences with an honest answer?
I pray that the Holy Spirit guides us all on our journey of Faith"ing".
In Christ,
John H
By
John H, at 9:03 AM
Greetings, brother John...
1) No, Catholics cannot say that Mary's perpetual virginity is a tradition and not a scriptural fact, because the belief is based on scripture and the fathers of the early church (tradition). Its not an either/or situation.
2) As to the purpose, "every Marian doctrine has a Christocentric core and a Christocentric purpose."
"I would also like to add that I also see Mary's perpetual virginity as necessary, because I, like the Church, regard Mary as the gate that the Messiah passed through, the one through which NO other man would pass through, the one that would forever more remain shut. It could be asserted that if Mary was not perpetually a virgin, then Jesus was not this Messiah predicted by the Old Testament. I believe that her perpetual virginity has a Christological purpose."
- by Rick Okarski, Jr. in a discussion of perpetual virginity at:
http://209.239.45.222/dcforum/DCForumID1/74.html
I will try to find a more official statement as to the purpose, but the above is a good starting point. I would post questions regarding the above purpose on the source forum itself.
3) As to "Can any Catholic say...my faith has increased because..... OR Our Lord revealed to me....", the answer is an unequivocal YES. Not only can many Catholics say it, but also many non-Catholics as well.
If you read the discussions on Mary at the forum I provided earlier, you would have read several non-Catholic ministers discussing Mary and how their new found knowledge of Marion beliefs has enhanced their faith and love for Christ.
4) I noted that your "fellow faith worker from around 2006 A.D." does not address why Mary is committed to the disciple John versus one of your alleged brothers or sisters of Christ. Also, Jesus burial is not provided by any alleged brother nor is Jesus body prepared by any alleged sister as would be Jewish custom of the day. If my brother were being executed and my mother was attending the execution, I, my brother and sister would be there with/for our mother. Where are the alleged siblings? Four Gospels and no mention.
There's also the problem that, when Jesus is missing in the temple at age 12, only Mary and Joseph are looking for him. If there was all that alleged sex going on, where are the alleged brothers and sisters during the temple search?
5) There is an excellent audio series on Mary by Dr. Scott Hahn. You might listen to "Hail, Holy Queen" at:
http://www.salvationhistory.com/bookstore/audioRsrcs.cfm
Dr. Hahn story of conversion from rabidly anti-Catholic minister to believing Catholic is there as well.
In summary...
"The key to understanding Mary is this: We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the Living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have for respecting her…
Never will it be found that anyone who really loves Our Lord as a Divine Saviour dislikes Mary… It is on account of our Divine Lord that Mary receives special attention, and not on account of herself. Left to herself, her motherhood would disolve into humanity. But when seen in the light of His Divinity, she becomes unique…
It is her Son that makes her motherhood different."
~Archbishop Fulton Sheen
May God bless you also and guide your discernment of the Catholic faith...
- Timothy
By
Timothy, at 6:25 PM
Brother Timothy-
1)
I am in strong disagreement that this Tradition is Scripturally proven...because it is not.
But I understand why you can't say Yes or no.
2)
There isn't a cell or part of my soul that would ever say that I dislike Mary.
3)
I have not found it necessary to think of Mary as a gateway to anything and I don't see how this is possible...and the Bible does not say anything of it...
But the bible does say:
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
This is the gateway I have been shown...and is the center of my faith.
4)
"As to "Can any Catholic say...my faith has increased because..... OR Our Lord revealed to me....", the answer is an unequivocal YES. Not only can many Catholics say it, but also many non-Catholics as well..."
I have heard this answer before but these people would not go into any detail...let alone never heard it from any non-Catholics. I will follow the link and check it out.
5)
"the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood" has not been my experience...but let's see what our walk in faith"ing" shows us.
6)
Shall we move on?
In Christ,
John H.
By
John H, at 7:25 PM
"...Mary as a gateway to anything and I don't see how this is possible...and the Bible does not say anything of it..."
Well, I learned something new. Mary's perpetual virginity is the fulfillment of an OT prophecy in Ezekiel 44:2
"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan cites Ezekiel 44:2 in his defense of perpetual virginity.
Also, unbelief in perpetual virginity opens the doors to claims of Jesus being merely a man/prophet from non-Christians, Muslims, etc. Basically, if Jesus' alleged 4-5 siblings are mere humans, why isn't Jesus also? It doesn't pull a rug out from underneath Catholics, it pulls a rug oput from under all Christianity.
---
Sure, I'm ready to move on. What are we going to discuss next?
By
Timothy, at 5:55 PM
Timothy-
When you read ALL of Ezekial 44 and put it in CONTEXT it is certainly not referring to Mary!!
When you read verse 3...was Jesus stuffed back into Mary's vaginal cavity in order to "go out by the same way"?
I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Mary but that's what YOU must be saying, right?!
First rule to interpreting Scripture:
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT
Ezekial Chapter 44 is talking about the future sanctuary. This world is definitely not a SANCTUARY that Christ entered into.
Why dont you think for yourself instead of studying commentary!
By
Anonymous, at 3:55 AM
Dear people,
If you understood the Scriptures you would know that Mary is dead in her grave and knows nothing. There is only one person who has been resurrected from the dead and that is The Lord Jesus Christ. No human being will be resurrected until He returns.
There is no such thing as the immortal soul, that is just another Babylonian lie just as praying to Mary is another lie. The Papists pray to a woman and child - Isis and Osiris. It's all pagan and it's all counterfeit.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/cbfunit/soul.htm
Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
y2t
By
yes2truth, at 2:24 PM
Excuse the Bible ingnorance of a cradle Catholic, but unless I misheard in church, was not Lazarus raised from the dead and is not one of the two thieves crucified along with Christ in paradise (heaven)?
Regarding "...was Jesus stuffed back into Mary's vaginal cavity...", the answer is no. I have re-read Ezekiel 44 several times and I noted that verse 3 talks about the porch of the gate versus the gate in verse 2.
I have also learned that what I called a prophecy is more correctly called a typology. In addition to the typology of the perpetual virginity in Ezekiel 44:3, there is a second typology in the Song of Songs:
"A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed." (Songs 4:12, KJVA)
The Eastern Christian Church states that " the word "sealed," according to St. John of Damascus, is a type of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God"
http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com/Program%20Notes/mary2_121904.htm
The fact that the Eastern Christian CHurch has held the belief in the perpetual virginity for almost 2,000 years; that the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) also held the perpetual virginity; that scripture does not disprove the perpetual virginity; and that the only purpose served by disbelief in the perpetual virginity is to destroy the Christian Church by denying the divinity of Christ, I will continue to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary per the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
May God bless all who read our words and may his Holy Spriit guide your discernment...
- Timothy
By
Timothy, at 7:48 PM
Hello Timothy,
The Holy Spirit guides me, so by default, unfortunately, it's the Devil who guides you.
Everything you have described in your post is of men (Babylon) and not of God.
Read my post before yours, then run along with all pagan garbage and repent, for outer darkness awaits you if you don't.
y2t
The story of Lazarus is just that a story - a parable. Anyone who takes it literally is deceived.
By
yes2truth, at 12:28 AM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Adam Bomb, at 4:22 PM
Belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary does not destroy any Catholic doctrine or teaching. If you would care to discuss another area of Catholicism, say works, then by all means let's start a new thread and discuss it. Once again, you have a misconception regarding the Catholic doctrines and I would be happy to discuss our teaching with you.
Changing subjects and attacking the messenger are often tactics when the facts are not in one's favor. "..spreading their legs..." and "riding the beas..." is no way to prove or disprove a doctrine. I have been honest and forthcoming, cited appropriate scriptures and historical sources, agreed with you when you were correct, and generally conducted myself in a Christian manner and deportment. I expect no less from others.
"...when the Catholic Church realizes that virginty is not more holy than sex within marriage..." would be an excellent topic for yet another thread. The church fathers wrote extensively on virginity and celibacy. There are many marvelous things to read and discuss.
"...maybe they will stop molesting our little boys!" Regretfully, Catholic priets are human and many gave into terrible temptation and commited grave sins. However, the number and percentage of Catholic clergy engaging in this behavior is actually less than for non-Catholic clergy. What is your defense of the 848 documented pedophiles among your own clergy?
http://www.reformation.com/
I believe we're up to 251 "Bible" Church (fundamentalist/evangelical) ministers and 147 Baptist ministers that have molested children. Where is the outcry for justice for their victims? How many blog posts have you made exposing their behavior?
"1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5 NIV)
Continuing Matthew 7, I see in verse 6 that I too have been remiss and I ask your forgiveness...
"6 Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6 NIV)
May God continue to bless all of you and keep you on the journey home...
- Timothy
By
Timothy, at 4:52 PM
Brother Timothy-
I have enjoyed and learned several things from your answers and these posts. I do not agree with the tone of voice directed at you. I have problems with making statements like "riding the beast" and not giving you the Scriptural basis to it.
I am hoping to carry on this discussion further in a Christian like manner as was our original intention.
I wrote: "This series is not intended to offend, insult, or attack anyone...but is a place to put facts as we as Christians see them and engage in a healthy debate on Christian Truth!
May the Holy Spirit guide us all and allow us to learn something new!"
I can't say that this has been adhered to from some of these replies from our group, and I apologize for any insults and rude behavior.
I am here to seek the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church states that they also seek the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and on that we meet common ground and are brothers.
I was catching up on a few things, and have delayed posting the next discussion. Please stick around and offer your input.
In Christ,
John H
By
John H, at 6:08 PM
Let us, with reverence and awe, approach the greatest mystery of all - the virgin birth of Him Who pre-existed all existence, of Him, Who is Existence itself. This is not an explanation of the mystery, to tell how the womb of a woman born in a manner like us could “contain Him Whom the whole universe cannot contain.” Rather, it is a dear hope to clear up some of the questions arising from the facts written in the New Testament with the revelation of God’s law in the Old.
Mary is the “Mother of God.” The title “Theotokos” means literally, “the one who gave birth to God.”
At first consideration, and without some prayerful and scriptural thought about these titles, they may sound shocking. How can a human, born under our fallen nature, be “the Mother of God?” Surely we should call her only, “the Mother of Jesus,” or, “the Mother of Christ.” When we ask the question, “should we call Mary `Mother of God,' or only `Mother of Christ', we suddenly realize that this question is not about Mary, but about Jesus Christ Himself. The actual question is this:
“Is Jesus only a special, anointed, Grace filled servant of God, or is He, in very truth, God incarnate?”
In other words, “Do we believe in the Holy Trinity or not?” If we believe in the Holy Trinity, and Christ is truly God incarnate, then, of course, Mary is the “Mother of God,” the “Theotokos”. If we reject the dogma of the Trinity and we 'believe that Jesus is only a specially anointed prophet, and then we would refuse to call Mary “Theotokos or “Mother of God.” We cannot have it both ways without playing blasphemous word games with the nature of our Savior, Jesus Christ, thus forcing our beliefs on history.
We will not pause to discuss this point at length, for it is simply resolved by the question, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your God and Savior, or do you consider Him to be only an extraordinary human prophet?” We will take time only to repeat that this mystery cannot be grasped without prayerful, scriptural contemplation of the matter.
Some sectarians suggest that it would be better to think of Mary as the Mother of only the human side of Jesus, the man. Such a suggestion is made from a weak humanity, an emotive reasoning that contains no logic or without thought or any form of scriptural consciousness. If we said that the child in Mary's womb was not the complete Person, the incarnate God, then we are faced with several problems. First, it would mean that, for a time, Jesus was not God, and then later He became God. This is what some of the Gnostic heretics taught, and it is really Theosophy to say this. In the case of most sectarians, however, it is said only from ignorance and lack of serious thought about the matter. The other problem is that in Christian arguments against legalized “cosmetic” abortions, we argue that the fetus is a complete person, body and soul at conception. The teaching that only part of Jesus' nature was present in Mary's womb, and that His nature was completed later, after His birth, would seem to help justify random abortion, for it means that the fetus is not the complete person. Moreover, if we accept two “births” of Jesus, one in which He was born only as a human, then Jesus was also under the fallen human nature and Himself in need of redemption. His second “birth” in which God entered Him and made Him half God and half man, would be a totally occult, “new age” type of concept.
Thus, to be an actual Christian and not a neo-Gnostic who only borrows the name “Christian,” one must accept that Mary is truly the Theotokos, the Mother of God. At this point it would be well to consider that the Early Christian Church started to call herself ‘Katolicos’. This she did to distance herself from the Gnostic heresy, to call attention to the unity of her teachings.
THE SCRIPTURAL, PROPHETIC REASONS FOR MARY'S EVER VIRGINITY
The history of the Church, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, has given us a fullness of understanding about the Nativity of Christ and the holy virgin. We know, the virgin birth was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah (7:14), and that Mary was betrothed to the aged Joseph, a close relative of hers. We know how she was raised in the temple itself, in a consecrated manner. Since every aspect of the New Testament, the plan of our redemption is foreshadowed and indicated in the Old Testament, we ought to find some reason for these things, some explanation for them in the Law and the Prophets - as indeed we do. For, the Law itself is only a revelation about man's condition and a revelation of, and preparation for, the redemption of mankind. Apart from those things spoken of directly by the Prophets, as Isaiah says, “A virgin shall bear a child,” or as the Greek version of the Septuagint proclaims, “The Virgin shall bear a Child”. The Law itself also contains less clear, but no less profound revelations. There is nothing recorded in the Scripture “accidentally,” every incident has meaning and purpose. The Law reveals the nature of our redemption.
Sacred Tradition has given us certain aspects of the life of Mary and Joseph, which seem to confuse and even anger many sectarians: This includes the familial relationship of Joseph to Mary. In doing so, they in their way condemn virginity by substituting the worldly view of today’s opinions on the physical relationship between Mary and Joseph after marriage. In fact they Judge the Lord’s Parents by themselves making them as ordinary people, thus denying God chose them specially. Then once again they condemn virginity itself and blaspheme the Nativity of Christ. They demand, in their vanity, “Show us some precedent for this in Scripture, for we do not accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church.”
Catholics might well stare in shock at the blasphemy of people who, while professing to believe in Christ, assert that the womb which was the palace, the chalice and the resting place of the Most High God, the pre-eternal Source of all being, might later have experienced penetration, yielding to the passions of fallen humanity. And what other babe could have dwelt in that awesome womb which the very God of holiness and purity Himself had inhabited? What else can we ask other than; “Would God put His seed in a dirty, spoiled cup?”
The Scriptural Law of Inheritance
The question we have to consider is, “Was the marriage of Joseph and Mary legal in the eyes of the Jewish faith?” Nothing else concerns us. They were under the Old Law and it is only that rule which can condemn them not us. Their marriage which is for us, is a contract not usually made between family members and certainly not experienced today. First for a virgin birth, there is no precedent, nor was there a precedent for the creation of universes before God did it. The will of God is its own precedent and if God is the eternal being, the ‘I AM’ then how could there be a precedence? Never the less in this world ‘the community of God’s people’ there is not only precedent for the physical life in the marriage of Mary and Joseph, but also a law for the preservation of inheritances. No one dare deny surely, Christ, the Messiah was the hope and inheritance of Israel. Let us look at the Law, then, and see what this precedent is and what it reveals to us about the nature of our redemption.
The promise of the Messiah was the hope and inheritance of Israel and, very specifically, of the tribe of Judah, the house of David. This inheritance, clearly, was to come forth from a woman who was yet a maiden, without the involvement of a man, as the Prophet Isaiah so clearly testifies. Now, the law concerning inheritances falling upon a woman is clearly prophetic, the more so since all such laws of the Old Testament make God the ultimate owner and source of authority over all property. According to the law, if an Israelite had no son then his daughter would receive the inheritance (Numbers 27:8:11). However, it was considered vital that the inheritance not pass out of the family and especially that it not pass out of the tribe. To prevent this from happening, if a woman was the bearer of the inheritance, she was required to marry a man of her father’s house (Numbers 36.6-8). The case of the daughters of Zelophehad makes this clearer, for they were betrothed to their own first cousins in order to preserve the inheritance in their own tribe and in their father's “house” (Numbers 36:11). Yet, God specifically forbade all marriages with near relatives, and not only with blood relations, but even with relations of affinity, as we read in Leviticus and elsewhere (Leviticus 18:6, etc). What then was the reason for this great contradiction? A contradiction, that women were instructed to betroth themselves to men too closely related to them for lawful intercourse and childbearing – this is sheer incest. It could only mean the daughters were expected to remain virgins even after their marriage. How hard it is to accept, believe and follow such an ordinance in today’s world, with its lack of discipline and obedience to God’s law.
Quite simply, the sanctity and preservation of inheritance stood above, or rather, as a special provision to, the former law, and the woman was expected, it would seem, to make this sacrifice for the sake of the inheritance. It did not abolish the former law or set it aside, and so the woman was, if the whole law was to be fulfilled, expected to spend her life as a virgin.
In the case of Mary, who bore the ultimate inheritance of the holy nation, the law itself came into its fullest meaning, and she was betrothed to an elderly family member of very close kin. Both were of the house of David, as must certainly have been the case since she had no brothers and was, therefore, also the bearer of her father's inheritance. But she, having been dedicated to God and having a vow of virginity already, remained within the bounds of the other law also.
So the betrothal of Mary to an elderly relative of the same tribe and house, who could be by consideration, even in the paucity of information of his life he lived must be because of Jewish traditional demands that all men must marry, Joseph could be reckoned to be a Nazirite, (Numbers 6:5) There could be two reasons for Mary’s virginity to be acknowledged, one is a marriage to a relative much too close for intercourse to be lawful, and two his vow to be a Nazirite. All this is provided for provided for in the Jewish Law and traditions. This law and tradition is in itself prophetic of Mary’s special mission as bearer of the Messiah, the heritage of Israel.
By
threehearts, at 6:37 PM
to timothy
your tone is offensive to me
your first comment from
"yes,i agree with you that some christian churches have gone astry"
line#2
the teachings of the catholic church is 100%
first let me commend the catholic church on its numerious sources that you draw from but dont let quanity get in the way of quality
IF
the catholic churches teaching are 100% correct then why............
1)father why does it say call no man father?
2)hail mary
pray for me now.
is this not like saul conjuring samuel?when you pray / conjure to mary?
pray for me at the hour of my death.
jesus died for my sins (past-present-future)once.quit trying to kill jesus again and again thru mary or anyone else.
3)pope is god's word on earth
if so then what the pope said would happen ie.when he pray's for peace it would appear because when god say's something it happens.when jesus said I AM he was saying he was god and the jews wanted to stone him.they (the jews) would have been right if he was not god .do you think the pope wants to take that test?i dont think so!if peter was the first pope and the pope is gods word on earth was did jesus tell peter to get behind me satan?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DONT THINK THIS IS A ATTACK ON PETER OR MARY IT IS AN ATTACK ON THE HERESY THAT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
4)the catholic is the
a)true church
who is my mother and who are my brothers?those who do the will of god are my mother,brothers,and sisters. this precludes any the catholic church or any other church from exclusively from being"QUOTE"--THE CHURCH.
b)first church
at the council of nicea where did you (catholic church)sit?was it first?why not first?
***by the way...at that council there was a problem with "OH THOSE ARIANS"
LET'S SEE NOW..............
ARIANS=NOT MY PEOPLE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
condition of people
-----------------------------------
---jew---gentiles-heathen-catholic
was before jesus death************
**********************************
married..divorced..n/a......n/a
after death of jesus
married..remarried.grafted .?.
.in.
what kind of wine
old new new new
what kind of wineskin
old......new.....new...old
taught by
moses...paul...paul..james
what results?
old new-...new .popped
...(marriage......)or POPEd
TIMOTHY this is your first two lines of your first entry
***SHALL I GO ON ???
By
nos3domis, at 9:06 PM
If you are true belivers then this Timothy is not your brother. Anyone who understands the Prophecy of Daniel 2 can prove than Rome is part of Babylon
Furthermore, The Godhead is a duality not a trinity. To prove to me that the trinity is truth, you will need to explain to me why Paul greets the Churches in the name of The Father and The Son and omits The Holy Spirit.
An explanation means an explanation not an explaining away which most of Chrisrendom is very good at
By
yes2truth, at 12:48 AM
From the barrage of replies, something must have struck a nerve...
John, I appreciate your post, I will gladly devote the time needed to discuss any aspect of the Catholic faith. I too have learned much during the past week or so.
threehearts, your post is certainly germaine, but muddies the discussion by the overabundance of material. Rather than pasting the entire text, consider a smaller exerpt and a link to the source.
yes2truth has made clear his theology and beliefs. Duality versus trinity would certainly be a topic for another thread.
As to nos3domis, you are once again introducing the "doctrinal dance." Rather than discuss and prove/disprove the doctrine at hand, you offer a barrage of misconceptions on other doctrines. Possibly John can accomodate you and future threads will discuss and examine each doctrine fully.
That said, "4) Hail Mary..." is germaine and your objection has already been discussed and answered. In my first reply, you'll find that Mary and the saints offer our prayers to God and that these activities do not interfere with Christ's mediation. As to the first part, "Hail Mary..." comes directly from Luke. The prayer is a recitation of the Gospel.
As John Corapi said; "If you love, read and live the Gospels, why would you mind 'PRAYING' the Gospels ?" If you have not read John Corapi's conversion story, its very compelling (Green Beret, millionaire, cocaine, homeless street person, salvation). You can find it here:
http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/1998/1298gn.htm
I'm late leaving for work...
May God bless us and guide us in our work today... Lord, make us an instrument of your Peace.
- Timothy
By
Timothy, at 5:49 AM
Timothy, thank you for taking the time to try to explain things to these folks. You've spoken well, and you're right in with our doctrine. Good job and God bless.
By
Thane, at 2:59 PM
Well,
I got bored, and din't read all the comments, nor the article. But I think, whoever wrote this mightb either like, or dislike the Catholics. Hey, maybe I'll read this article sooner or later.
By
Anonymous, at 4:46 PM
BIBLETRUTH!
By
Anonymous, at 4:46 PM
Hello Thane,
Your friend Timothy hasn't explained anything. All he has done is given us load of old dung, otherwise known in the vain intellectual circles of Roman Catholicism as syllogisms.
Roman Catholicism = Syllogisms.
To likes of those of us who are called by The Father, this means they make it up as they go. This in turn, means it is just one lie after another.
A little note for Timothy - The Truth hasn't got any nerves.
y2t
By
yes2truth, at 10:10 AM
To yes2truth-
Hey, I like your comments but I'm going to have to disagree with this one. The reason why Paul greets them in the name of the Father and the Son is quite simple. They can't be greeted by what is already with them. They have the Holy Spirit inside of them therefore there is no neeed to greet in the name of the Holy Spirit. That would be my answer anyways.
No verse is of private interpretation. Do you have at least a second verse to back this up? Scripture must interpret scripture. And dont try to use the first part of the first chapter of John's Gospel...the point of that passage is Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. The 4 Gospels are about Jesus (though we see glimpses of all three), Acts is the working of
the Holy Spirit.
Also consider Matthew 3:16,17 and 4:1. We see a picture of the triune God in "individual" forms.
The Holy Spirit is simply God's omnipresent Spirit. Whether this makes the Godhead a triune one or dual one is not something I find time worthy to discuss. It makes my head spin just trying to picture what God looks like in His true spiritual glorious form. You cant deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. He's all over the Old and New Testament. Jesus tells his disciples he will send another Helper seversl times throughout the book of John. This leads me to believe that the Holy Spirit is individual in nature yet obviously One with Jesus and the Father at the same time. If there not individual (which is what blows my mind: being One at the same time), then how does Jesus send Him?
By
Adam Bomb, at 7:21 PM
Timothy-
Look, if you think I'm here to defend the Protestant Church, you're absolutley wrong! I'll be the first one to admit protestant churches have there share of faults and have no problem talking about it. Just know that the only reason I pick on the Catholic Church is that they are the only ones claiming to be God's representatives on earth, 100% inerrant, inherently "Holy", the only way to Jesus, and the first and true Church. These are all absolutly false claims! (Dont worry we will start new streams of blogs to tackle these individually, I'm not trying to argue my case here). The Catholic Church can use a little lesson on humility. If they didn't make such self-righteous claims I would be a little more forgiving. By claiming inherent Holiness they defame and marginalize the true Holiness of God. And it makes me sick. I'm not trying to point fingers but...let's not forget about the Pope (Julius II) who undeniably had syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease). A great many of the Popes were vile and godless men. I mean heck...if that's "Holy", then maybe Dan Brown was right about Jesus!
Go here for more on the disgusting papal history:
http://www.rense.com/general63/popo.htm
Oh and by the way, I wouldn't consider the Catholic doctrine "pearls." A pearl would be the true undefiled teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul (faith alone) who got his authority from Jesus himself and was confirmed by Peter (2 Peter 3:15,16)...unlike James. Not the teachings of man. But, it's ok, I can understand why you so dearly hang on to Catholic doctrine, consider it to be a pearl, and think the Pope to be the Word of God on earth.
May we all continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
By
Adam Bomb, at 8:20 PM
Hello Adam,
"Hey, I like your comments but I'm going to have to disagree with this one."
Then I must ask you to ask yourself on what foundation you place your belief. God or mammon? Do you believe in the same way as the Bereans believed or by what men tell you?
By that same Spirit we have Jesus Christ in us too, plus there would have been people in the churches not yet baptised and therefore not have the The Holy Spirit in them. So I will repeat, that if The Holy Spirit was a personage of a trinity then Paul would have included 'him' in his greetings.
The Holy Spirit is God's Power, not a personage.
The Trinity Doctrine is wholly man made or reasoned out by men and is just another Roman Catholic lie.
1 John 5:7 is the only verse that mentions a trinity Godhead and that verse was added in when the Vulgate translation was written. Check out any reliable Greek original and you will not find this verse.
So what does this tell us? Easy, The trinity garbage is a lie and Roman Catholicism is the Devil's handiwork!
y2t
By
yes2truth, at 5:50 AM
Furthermore to my previous post.
This is The Godhead and God never changes.
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD (The Eternal and self existent) our God (Elohim = plural, more than one) is one (united and number one i.e. none above) LORD:
The Godhead is two who are united i.e. totally like minded who have always existed and who have none above them. There is no mention here of the Holy Spirit as being a personage in this arrangement. The Holy Spirit is the Power of the Godhead.
y2t
By
yes2truth, at 10:33 AM
Hey there y2t-
Maybe your right....maybe your not...
That's a tough one because I dont think scripture specifically says the Holy Spirit is or isn't a personage. The bible doesn't speak on who or what the Holy Spirit actually is. I know the Holy Spirit can be grieved, I know the Holy Spirit can be sent, I know the Holy Spirit seems to move as it wishes (John 3:8). I dont think that matters either way as long as we are both acknowdging its existence. The Holy Spirit is a mystery we will never fully grasp until we get to heaven.
I'm not saying your wrong....I'm just not fully convinced by your arguement. This is a topic that our group plans to write on as God continues to reveal His truth to us. Discussions like these only help to bring out more thoughts.
I dont condemn the Catholic Church for coming up with the Trinitarian doctrine. Even if they're wrong its still just as good of a guess as anyone else's. But I will agree with you that their doctrine is the Devil's handiwork and the false teachings of men, who think they can earn their way into heaven through good works and religious exercises. It's all just a bunch of Hocus Pocus.
By
Adam Bomb, at 3:56 PM
Hi Adam,
I know I am right and not because I am arrogant or belligerent, but as a True Believer I must be confident when speaking The Truth. This is what Paul meant by boasting in Christ.
You're correct, it is ALL hocus pocus and that includes the trinity.
When you get to the bottom of it, all these people have done, is incorporate as many pagan beliefs and notions into their religion as possible and then dress it up as Christianity. It's all religion.
Jesus Christ was not religious. The word religion never passed His lips and we know He hated religion because the Pharisees were full of religion.
The Hindus, the Egyptians and the Druids all have/had trinity deities within their beliefs. This alone is enough to tell us to beware, if nothing else.
It also beggars the question: Is Jesus Christ in the likeness of a pagan deity; is He going to allow Himself in any way, shape or form to be associated with the work of The Devil?
Is Our Lord one amongst others? For I will tell you this, Anglican/Episcopalian 'ministers' will happily pontificate about the 'uniqueness' of Christ, so this alone tells us that they DO think Our Lord is one amongst others. Uniqueness is a human quality - we are all unique and to label Our Lord 'unique' is a gross blasphemy and it all stems from the idea that following Jesus Christ is a religion. If following Jesus Christ is a religion then He is one amongst others - a nonsense.
What we must learn is Rome/Babylon hates Jesus Christ and its policy has always been to discredit Jesus' name.
The unsaved look at Roman Catholicism as THE Christian Church, but they also look at Rome's track record with all the torture, death and destruction that can be, justifiably, laid at its door step. Now what does this do to Jesus Christ's name? How much shame does it bring to His glorious Name. This policy is the work of the Devil and no other.
In order to have a religion you need deities i.e. pieces of stone, metal or wood and RC buildings are all full of such icons. Where in NT Scripture are there instructions and examples of these things and practises?
I am sure you know the True answers to these questions.
y2t
By
yes2truth, at 10:33 PM
Yes2truth-
You bring up alot of great points that I agree with and I commend you for being passionate. On the other hand, from what I know about Satan (as shown all throughout the Bible) everything Satan does is a 'copy cat' of what God does. Not just sometimes, but in EVERYTHING. Therefore other trinity deities doesn't seem to help your point.
Maybe its not so much that the Catholic Church has copied Satan's work...maybe its more like Satan has duplicated the trinity concept from the true Trinity, like he always does. Just a thought....
But as far as bringing shame to the Holiness of God/Jesus I agree and had also made that point earlier. I think the Catholic Church does a great job at it...and just to be fair, so do some protestant churches though not as candidly NOR AS EXTREME. And yes Jesus hated religion and all empty outward appearances of righteousness...this is something that Catholics do not understand because they dont read the Gospels for themselves.
Placing any form of statues or carved images in a Church for religious purposes is disgusting in the eyes of God and can definitley have demonic attachment (i.e. Jesus depicted on a cross, Mary, and other Saints).
The 2nd Commandment is to make no carved images of things in the sky, on earth, or under the water (Exodus 20:4). To any Catholics who like to justify themselves by the arc of the covenant- THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE CHERUBIM...CHERUBIM ARE NOT CREATURES OF THIS WORLD. STOP MAKING GOD OUT TO BE A HYPOCRITE AND STOP LYING TO YOURSELVES AND MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOUR ABOMINATIONS!
I'm done....
By
Adam Bomb, at 2:31 AM
Hi Adam,
You said:
"You bring up alot of great points that I agree with and I commend you for being passionate. On the other hand, from what I know about Satan (as shown all throughout the Bible) everything Satan does is a 'copy cat' of what God does. Not just sometimes, but in EVERYTHING. Therefore other trinity deities doesn't seem to help your point.
Maybe its not so much that the Catholic Church has copied Satan's work...maybe its more like Satan has duplicated the trinity concept from the true Trinity, like he always does. Just a thought...."
Roman Catholicism was not the beginning of Satan's work, but rather a continuation. Rome is just the final phase of Babylon as portrayed by the image of Nebuchadnezzars dream in Daniel 2.
Satan does not copy God, he opposes God. Satan is the author of confusion and the father of lies. There is nothing more confusing than papal doctrine and ALL of it is lies. Now for anyone to say the trinity is truth, by default, accredits Rome with having some truth and that is an impossibility.
Adam, there is no true trinity because there is no trinity - period.
I will repeat what I said in an earlier post: 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in Scripture that mentions a trinity Godhead and that verse was added in when the Vulgate translation was written. Check out any reliable Greek original and you will not find this verse.
y2t
By
yes2truth, at 11:42 AM
oh to bad
probably reading this to late but here goes anyway.
the catholic belief system differs
little for the pharisee's
in that they say i am right ; traditions are right ;my interpitation are right ; never mind the unfolding of time .
what am i saying ???
god said
man shall live by the word of god ----catholics say ?
call no man father---catholics say???
mary assumed into heaven
like enoch and elijah,but they die as 2 witness of rev . ; thats leaves only mary "special mary"
never to die thus voiding the word of god in that all have sinned and come short of the glory of god combined with the wages of sin is death . taking it to the NEXT STEP; IF MARY DOESNT DIE ; THEN GODS WORD IS NOT TRUE
SO WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT
TO CATHOLIC-WE ARE RIGHT
---TO GOD - MY WORD IS TRUE
GOD WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A CATHOLIC
By
Anonymous, at 1:19 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home