H
highrigger
Guest
bishop,
I am non Roman myself. Anthony wanted to debate so here I am. But he does not show.
JohnR
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
bishop,
I am non Roman myself. Anthony wanted to debate so here I am. But he does not show.
JohnR
I'm just saying that eventually these 'catholic v protestant' things always end up with someone attacking and ridiculing another's religious view and basically back-handily saying 'your view's wrong, God hates you and see you in hell'.
I know this courtesy of living in a conflict zone for 23 years.
W
Widdekind
Guest
At the Jerusalem Council circa 50 AD, James, Bishop of Jerusalem, spoke the words "I judge" ego krino (Acts 15).
In the whole New Testament, only Jesus ever, elsewhere, spoke the words "I judge" (John 5:30, 8:15+).
Ergo, in the early Church, there was one person who was invested with the vicarious authority of Christ. At first, that person was apparently Peter (Acts 1-12). But, under intense persecution (Acts 12), circa 44 AD, the Church installed James, who was both a Christian, but also widely acknowledged as unambiguously Jewishly devout, too. James famously prayed in the temple so often, that his knees became calloused like a camel's. James remained head of the Church, until suffering martyrdom in 62 AD. Cp. PBS Empires -- Peter & Paul.
Prima facie, one Church has one "Head" of Church. So, seemingly, there "ought" to be one "Pope" (as it were), elected by the Church.
But also, that person need not be Peter, nor be from Rome. The "Pope" represents the Church, not Rome (nor Jerusalem, nor any other city).
And too, Greek Orthodoxy seeks to exclude Rome. Greeks never liked being conquered by Rome in the 2nd century BC, and used Christianity to secede from the Roman empire, marginalizing Rome, which fell, in the 5th century AD. Relatedly, Christians identified Jerusalem, where Jesus was Crucified, as "Babylon", cp. Revelation 11. But, non-Christian Jews identified "Babylon" to Rome. All Greek Orthodox commentators claim "Babylon" represents Rome. They have adopted non-Christian Jewish perspectives. They have "Judaized". Revelation condemns Jerusalem ("Babylon") and the pagan Roman empire of Rome ("Beast"). But by "aiming both barrels" at Rome, Greek Orthodoxy excludes & marginalizes Rome.
Seemingly, there "ought" to be one "Pope", representing the Church, but not necessarily Rome, nor Jerusalem, nor Constantinople, nor any other secular city. "Truth" seems divided, between Orthodoxy (ancient Rome is not necessarily the center of the Christian Church), and Catholicism (there ought to be one Pope); mingled with falsehood (Greeks deny there ought to be a Pope, Italians demand the Pope be from Rome).
If so, then unity between Orthodox Greeks & Catholic Italy will only occur, after the above points are acknowledged.
I
Iluv_Jesus
Guest
38.) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39.) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40.) For he that is not against us is on our part.
41.) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. MARK chapter 9 verses 38 - 41.
A kingdom divided within itself will not stand. Let us focus on what unites Us. Jesus Christ does. Amen.
39.) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40.) For he that is not against us is on our part.
41.) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. MARK chapter 9 verses 38 - 41.
A kingdom divided within itself will not stand. Let us focus on what unites Us. Jesus Christ does. Amen.
B
BishopSEH
Guest
The key part of the segment you quoted is "If you really want to do this". If he really wanted this debate I would have torn him to shreds for the simple fact that most catholic apologists ignore the secular records of the day. You might find this of interest the Josephus records the murder of Jesus's brother during a transition between governors. He states the James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ... The rest is details of his death. The focal point is the naming of James and Jesus' brother. This of course tears apart the whole concept of Immaculate Conception. Mary and Joseph clearly had other children together unless there is another way Jesus could have had a brother.
This is a central dogma of the Roman faith and yet it have been proven false. Still they hold to it. They still teach it and uphold it as necessary for belief in Christ.
There are many other such doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Church that are even more shaky. However, the same could be said of most denominations of not all of them. No church preaches and teaches the pure faith of the Bible and in truth I am not sure we as fallen people could do the true Church justice. We simply soldier on and do our best.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
This is a central dogma of the Roman faith and yet it have been proven false. Still they hold to it. They still teach it and uphold it as necessary for belief in Christ.
There are many other such doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Church that are even more shaky. However, the same could be said of most denominations of not all of them. No church preaches and teaches the pure faith of the Bible and in truth I am not sure we as fallen people could do the true Church justice. We simply soldier on and do our best.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
W
Widdekind
Guest
For sake of minimizing conflicts, there is no need to oppose the doctrine of "Immaculate Conception". For want of worthier words, the gestation of John the Baptist, in the womb of his mother (Elizabeth), was Divinely Guided, influenced by Holy Spirit, at least to some extent:
So, John the Baptist, who became imbued with the "Spirit of Elijah" (Luke 1), was imbued with that Holy Spirit, from before birth, at least to some extent. And so, Jesus, who became imbued with the full-fledged "Incarnation of God", would, presumably, have had an even-more-special birth. Jesus, not his brother James, was the Messiah. So, Jesus could have had an "Immaculate Conception", more miraculous than his brother. (Such would have been subject to the Discretion of God in heaven, not any human on earth.)
Never-the-less, James was an Apostle, and, also, seemingly, a "Pope". Josephus in one place records James suffering martyrdom, at the temple of Jerusalem, circa 62 AD; and, elsewhere, also records that from that moment, a Prophet named Jesus (son of Hananiah) began Prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, crying "woe, woe to Jerusalem" for seven-and-a-half years, until killed in the Roman siege of the city, circa 70 AD.
And again, even James may not have had the same sort of "Divinely Guided birth", as Jesus Christ. (Such would have been subject to the Discretion of God in heaven, not any human on earth.)
So, John the Baptist, who became imbued with the "Spirit of Elijah" (Luke 1), was imbued with that Holy Spirit, from before birth, at least to some extent. And so, Jesus, who became imbued with the full-fledged "Incarnation of God", would, presumably, have had an even-more-special birth. Jesus, not his brother James, was the Messiah. So, Jesus could have had an "Immaculate Conception", more miraculous than his brother. (Such would have been subject to the Discretion of God in heaven, not any human on earth.)
Never-the-less, James was an Apostle, and, also, seemingly, a "Pope". Josephus in one place records James suffering martyrdom, at the temple of Jerusalem, circa 62 AD; and, elsewhere, also records that from that moment, a Prophet named Jesus (son of Hananiah) began Prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, crying "woe, woe to Jerusalem" for seven-and-a-half years, until killed in the Roman siege of the city, circa 70 AD.
And again, even James may not have had the same sort of "Divinely Guided birth", as Jesus Christ. (Such would have been subject to the Discretion of God in heaven, not any human on earth.)
I have issued a challenge to Non-Catholic on a few other forums that has never been answered:
Can anybody show me one verse in Scripture that says Mary had other children?
If you can answer that - then your position may hold water. If you can't - is doesn't.
Those arguments are old, worn out protests that the Catholic apologists have long since refuted in no uncertain fashion... unless you are clinging to the myopic 'anti' bunch who will not even try to be reasonable.
Just to speed things up here I recommend the anti-Catholic clingers at least make a half-hearted attempt at familiarizing themselves with the basics and read a small, easy to follow book by Calvinist convert to Catholicism, Dr. Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home
Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism: Scott Hahn, Kimberly Hahn: 9780898704785: Amazon.com: Books
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
whether or not mary had other children besides jesus...it is pretty clear that she did not remain a virgin her entire life...
matthew 1:24-25..."When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."
How is the "clear" evidence?
Matt. 1:25 says: "... he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?
Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?
The problem here is that non-Catholics and anti-Catholics attempt to apply 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.
Rachel, that doesn't say Mary had other children, which is the question you were replying to.
And while it does bring the "ever-Virgin" claim into question, it does not make it "pretty clear" that she did not remain a virgin. It only shows that Joseph was within the bounds of the Angel's instructions to be with his wife, Mary, in a normal conjugal relationship after the birth of the Son.
Still, the scriptural lack of any future children brings that supposition into question.
Your suspicion is reasonable and duly noted... however it is also reasonably dubious based on the lack of reference to any future children being born by Mary.
It is understandable to have doubts about the Catholic position on the "ever virgin" status but the matter is far from scripturally supported one way or the other in a definitive manner. Reasonable Protestants will grant the Catholic Doctrine at least that much.
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
i already knew this would be your objection...and here is the response i had ready...
your comparisons are 'apples and oranges' comparisons... to begin with...in the original texts 2 samuel 6:23 and matthew 1:25 are not even in the same language!
but more importantly...the passages you posted and the one i posted have a fundamental difference...yours all use the term 'until' with reference to an ultimate endpoint...such as the death of michal... there is no danger of anyone assuming that michal had children after she died because having children after you are dead is impossible...so the word 'until' can be used there without any ambiguity... similarly the victory of christ over all enemies is another ultimate endpoint connected with the end of time...
the birth of jesus on the other hand is not an ultimate endpoint...it is just a reference point in her life...with her life continuing for many years after the reference point...many years in which having sex with her husband would have been possible if not morally mandated...
if mary had remained a virgin all her life...matthew would have written 'joseph knew her not until the day she died'...removing any ambiguity...
as it stands the text and common sense make it very clear that mary did not remain a virgin for her entire life...
think about it this way...nobody would write 'john paul ii was celibate until he became pope'
was Joseph previously married?
If it is accepted that Joseph was much older than Mary, it is likely Yes.
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
well the real issue...as anyone who has debated this issue for very long knows...is whether or not mary remained a virgin for her entire life... the question of whether or not mary had other children is just an argument for or against that...
in any case the text does indicate that jesus had brothers and sisters...proponents of the myth of perpetual virginity often claim that these were children of joseph and a previous wife...however if joseph already had children before jesus was born...where are these children in the entire biblical account of jesus' childhood?
the bible gives no indication for example that joseph and mary -and several children- traveled to bethlehem to be registered...or that joseph brought mary and jesus -and several other children- to egypt with them... although the argument from silence is usually not decisive...in this case it seems almost unbelievable that children of joseph from a previous marriage would be entirely missing from the accounts of jesus' early life...
Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
Matthew 12:46
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.
was Joseph previously married?
It can be illustrated that Jesus himself and the Apostles studied and quoted from the Septuagint. The fact is that over 100 passages in the New Testament are directly correlated to these 7 books from the Septuagint.
In the Septuagint, 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 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. The attempt by some Protestants to apply one word for all of these meanings in 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century English is ludicrous. Just as languages differ – so do the meanings of different words.
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 the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (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).
There is another quandary for Protestants who attempt to prove that Mary had other children and list the names given in the Bible. They give the names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas), and list the passages that mention these adelphoi, (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 the mother of James an. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25).
James is elsewhere described as the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3), which would mean this other Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. However, Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. It’s also possible that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the same way that Saul took the name Paul.
What do the Scriptures 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) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.
If Joseph's children were older, they wouldn't have been with Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. They wouldn't have go to Egypt with them. they wouldn't have gone to Jerucalem with them when Jesus was 12.
Anyway - read my last post.
Deut. 24:6 tells us about Moses death and burial:
"And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place until this day."
This connotes an ongoing situation.
Did the people suddenly find out AFTER where Moses was buried?
Relatively speaking Joseph was barely a footnote in the New Testament as a whole and any children from a prior irrelevant relationship unconnected to the Birth of the Savior! would understandably fall quickly by the wayside.
If Joseph's children from a prior marriage were more than about 14 years old there is more than a fair chance that they would not likely be part of his trek to Bethlehem for the census.
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
actually regardless of the age of joseph's children...they would have been required to go to bethlehem to register just like joseph and mary did...because they would have been from the line of david too...
and likewise joseph's children would have traveled to jerusalem with them for the passover...luke 2:44 indicates that they went with their relatives... interestingly no brothers or sisters are mentioned among the relatives at that time...maybe they weren't born yet?