ChristiansUnite Forums

Hi everyone,

I was just banned from a catholic online forum for insinuating that calling the pope "Holy Father" is blasphemous. I feel insulted and extremely offended when a human being is put on the same level as God and my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The very fact that I was banned shows me that they consider it blasphemous to call the POPE a human being which indicates they ARE putting him on the same level as God.  How do other feel about this?

I see Catholic priests occasionally, and I have addressed them as "Father".


Mostly tho I just try to avoid them, so the issue doesn't come up.

It is blasphemous tho, so I'm the hypocrite.


I've wondered about it in Disney's 1940 "Pinocchio".  When Pinoke is searching for his father, he's calling out, "Father! Father!"  Jiminy Cricket following suit, says equally, "Father!..." --then catches himself, and says, "Harumph!.  He's not my father."  And then goes on, calling out, "Mr. Gepeddo, oh Mr. Gepeddo."

And I've wondered if that wasn't a dig at Catholics by Walt.  I know his dad was an itinerat sometime lay minister, and had the boys reading in their bibles.  (Walt's middle name was "Elias").

So I generally avoid the Catholics, and because of that, mainly.

... and?  People get banned from this forum if they put forward views that the moderator & admins deem outside of the remit of this forum.


Calling the Pope "Holy Father" isn't putting him on the same level as Christ, even if you think it is.


No it doesn't.  It proves they felt you were out of order in the subject matter you chose or the way to discussed it. Catholics are well aware that the Pope is just a human being, albeit one in a very special office.

There are plenty of other threads discussing why it isn't blasphemous to call a priest father, but if it still bothers you then don't.  No Catholic priest worth his salt is going to be offended by someone outside his flock not calling him father.

If you try to ram it down his throut that it's blasphemous, then he might get offended.

Heide,
Praise God!!!! You should be full of joy that you were banned!!!! The RC Religion is full of blasphemy and error. There are probably a FEW true believers in their ranks as they do preach Christ, but the entire religious system is full of error.

To begin with, its foundation is completely wrong. I am making reference to Peter's confession, petra, petros, and the Church. It goes on to add such absurdities and non-scriptural teachings as the veneration of Mary, transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, lent and other such nonsense, Papal infallibility, purgatory, prayers for the dead, nuns, and celibacy (Its always cheaper to have to house and have insurance for only one person).

You should be thrilled at being banned as it means that you are being persecuted for righteousness sake. Now, someone will probably come along, take a portion of what I posted, and attempt an attack mw since what I have posted is truth. I hope they do and I can then celebrate with you.

Grace and peace X,

aw

Being right can lead to persecution, as Christ taught.  But being persecuted doesn't prove you are right.

Thank you, aw, for your response. You seemed to understand how i felt. I felt joy in my heart when i saw "The Holy Father" because i thought they were talking about God. Then when I saw they were talking about the pope, my heart sunk. Then i became furious. I honestly could indentify with how Jesus must have felt in the temple when He saw they were treating it like a "den of thieves."  If that's what they call the pope, then what do they call God?

I also understand how Luther must have felt about the teachings of the church; selling penitances, keeping people from reading the bible, dictating right and wrong. Some of those things have been changed but I still see a tremendous arrogance in the catholic church which is manifested in the priest forgiving sins, priestly garments and robes, elaborate ceremonies, all these things which God specifically forbade us to do. And as you say, venerating Mary. This is crazy! What is the purpose of all this? How does this encourage a personal relationship with Christ? Sometimes it actually look satanic to me.

I went to the forum to find more out about the church, hoping I was wrong about them. But they only re-confirmed my previous conceptions that are NOT AT ALL scriptural. The saddest thing of all, was they were more interested in defending the catholic church than Christ Himself! I went away deeply saddened.

All you have to do is read Christ's words and use discernment from the Holy Spirit to see the truth, ebia. in Matthew, 23:9, Jesus said; "And do not call anyone on earth 'father' for you have one Father and he is in heaven." I don't know who your father is, ebia, but I know who mine is and it's not the pope!

Heidi,
I don't see anything wrong with addressing a priest as "father" - but "Holy Father" (in the capitalized sense) is a whole other story!  My apologies to my Catholic brothers and sisters – but, personally, I just could never do it without feeling like a blasphemer.

Let your conscience guide you, Heidi - if it makes you feel guilty in Christ, then you are right not do it.  

Yours in Him,
JN

Another false doctrine of the Catholic organization is the establishment of a "PRIESTHOOD." That is totally ascriptural and without apostolic authority. ALL believers are "PRIESTS" unto our High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as an earthly priest that believers are to be subservient to.

The same is true for "SAINTS." All believers in Christ are SAINTS as the Lord is made unto us "Wisdom, righteousness, SANCTIFICAATION, and resemption." The very idea of an organization declaring anyone a SAINT, as distinguished from any other believer, is repugnant.

The trickery of catholocism that it sounds right, but what they have essentially done is to make everything dependent upon their organization. For example, they are THE dispensers of God's grace.

If God has called you to stay in the RCC in order to win others to the Lord, then stay there, but otherwise run as far away as you can and and as fast as possible. The fruit of this religion is readily apparent as the list being sent to prison and the out-of-court settlements expands.

aw

Heidi:

You are absolutely right in concluding that the title of "Holy Father" when applied to the pope, is utterly blasphemous. The Lord Jesus Christ has specifically commanded us to "Call no man father", and it can only be said of God that "holy and reverend is His name". Furthermore to call priests "Father" is disobedience to God, as is calling men "Reverend", "Right Reverend" etc.

Scripture is very clear: "ALL YE ARE BRETHEN" , so the proper way to address pastors as well as brothers/sisters in the Lord is to call them "Brother" or "Sister".  Ananias called Saul, "Brother Saul" after the Lord told him that Saul the persecutor was now saved.  This apostle called others his brethren, and the apostle Peter did not elevate himself above other elders but said he was a "fellow-elder".

The pretensions of popery have been obtained from paganism, as has his title of Pontifex Maximus. This title was originally applied to Roman emperors as high priests of their heathen religion. So the connection of the Church of Rome to paganism is well-established.

Furthermore pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, "The Reunion of Christendom" (1885) declared that the pope holds " UPON THIS EARTH THE PLACE OF GOD ALMIGHTY".  Imagine that!
God is withholding His judgment from Mystery Babylon until all things are fulfilled, but God's wrath is reserved against the city that sits on seven hills. All the Reformers referred to the pope as "the Anti-Christ". Today "evangelicals" (inclduing Billy Graham) are seeking cooperation.  Think how far we have fallen away!

aw:

I agree with the bulk of your post, but your counsel regarding God calling someone to remain in Babylon does not jibe with Scripture.  God specifically commands those who are in Babylon to "COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM AND BE YE SEPARATE, AND TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING" (2 Cor. 6:17).

There is such a thing as "ecclesiastical separation", and we should be separated from those who teach false doctrine and commit false practice. The dogmas of Rome are false from start to finish, but they do wear a very Christian garb, "and no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light".

There's a perfectly good thread already that address this.  If you have any further questions or points to raise that haven't already been addressed there, then that would seem to be the place to do it.

Well, you've successfully demonstrated that you have no understanding of the Catholic concept of ordained priest, sacrement, or of the significance of canonisation.   What makes you think you're in a position to condemn an organisation you don't even begin to comprehend?


Since all the other branches of Christianity are in the same boat, roughtly proportional to the size of each denomination, from the RCC to the Sally Army, then either one must conclude:
a.  the whole of christianity is rotten to the core
or
b.  the Church, in all its branches, depends on the strength of God and doesn't fall despite the clear failings of the individuals that make it up.

There's nothing wrong with calling everyone brother, but that doesn't demonstrate that its the only appropriate title in every possible circumstance.  He said "You are all brothers", not 'you must only call each other "brother"'


The anti-Catholic favourite.   A quote taken out of the context and background that are necessary to understand what the writer meant.


Simply not true.  Some did.  Many did not.

Since I've never met two Christians who can agree on everything (on-line or in reality) this can only lead to a billion denominations each consisting of one person, and none of them talking to anyone else.

So the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong?  The doctrine of Christ as Son of God is wrong?

To say all the dogmas of Rome are false is clearly untrue.  Infact, if you understood them, you'd find you agree with FAR more than you disagree with, and most of those you do disagree with you wouldn't think are critical.  But first you have to understand them instead of taking your misunderstanding and using it as a basis for condemnation.

Good point. I was just thinking of "Let those who are slaves remain as such, etc.," and "To the Jew I became a Jew" so as to WIN SOME. I have known a couple of folks who stayed in the catholic church after true salvation with the idea that they would lead them out of that organization.

Your words are true and we are not to be unequally yoked, etc.

Thanx,

aw

Ebia, you have consistently shown that you defend the catholic church more than you defend Christ Himself. That is a classic response from a cult member. I suggest you look to Christ's words for answers instead of the cult doctrine to which you adhere. When talking about His sheep, Jesus said "no one can snatch them out of my hand." The catholic church disagrees with Him. They also disagree with Him that no one should call anyone on earth 'father'. They also disagree with Him that few will be saved because they've baptized billions of people. They also disagree with Him when He said that we will be persecuted because of Him. The pope is revered by more people in the world than any other leader. There are many more beliefs they endorse that do not agree with Christ's words. But who is Jesus? They certainly do not think much of Jesus but they sure do consider the pope infallible!  This is classic idol worship which is what makes up a cult.

Getting a bit personal here, but I think it gets back to the scriptural definition of the "CHURCH!" It has nothing in this world to do with catholocism or even protestantism. CHRSITIANITY, for information, is the BODY of Christ which includes ALL who have believed in Him for salvation.

I have read through the catechism  enough that I found out it to be both full of error and ascriptural. From that publication comes such blasphemous announcements as papal infallibility, the veneration of Mary, and explicitly that there is no salvation available outside of membership in the catholic church.

Concerning  the scanadals rampant in the catholic church- it is RAMPANT and they suspect over 30,000 cases that have not gone to court as of this date. To charge all denoinations as being equally guilty is without any support whatsoever. Of course, there are always tares among the wheat, but castholocism is particularly heinous.

aw

The very fact that I was banned shows me that they consider it blasphemous No it doesn't.  It proves they felt you were out of order in the subject matter you chose or the way to discussed it. Catholics are well aware that the Pope is just a human being, albeit one in a very special office.

aw: Special office? It is not to be found in scripture. The ccc #889, in opposition to scripture, states that the pope is the Magisterium of the church and that Christ confers upon this mere man a portion of His own infallibility. # 890, 891 contain further fallacies inherent in the ccc. If I were a catholic priest, I would prefer to be addressed as "BROTHER" as that is a more appropriate title.

aw

Right on, Aw! I liked your suggestion about going to the church to lead people to Christ. But I'm very afraid of the clergy in the catholic church. The fact that I was banned from their forum (the only forum from which I've ever been banned) shows the control with which they try to exert to perpetuate their false beliefs. Nevertheless, it's the only idea I can comes up with...other than posting a list of grievances on their doors for which I would be arrested. I'm not ready to do that yet. Luther indeed had courage! However, I don't worship Luther either. He was a reformist who gave people the chance to form a relationship with Christ Himself. For that, we have God to thank for everything comes from Him. Praise be to God!

Heidi,

Are you really shocked for having been banned from such a forum? You walked into a Cathlolic forum, accused the Catholics and their faith of being blasphemous, and then express incredulity for having been banned?

To lend some perspective, Catholicism teaches that much of Protestantism is heresy, a pretty strong word. Now I could spend my days on this forum ranting about protestant heretics, but it likely wouldn't accomplish much and probably get me banned. Should I then get upset over such a decision? No.

If one wishes to enter another's house, be prepared to respect their customs.

I agree with you about Protestant churches also. But the pope is considered to be head of the church in general instead of Christ. I just watched a 3 hour documentary on the papacy last night on A&E where they talked about the infallibility of the pope. It showed the monstrous church of the vatican decorated in the same splendor that the Jews decorated the temple. When Christ died, the temple curtain tore in half because Christ Himself replaced the temple. Paul warned us of many false teachers and indeed there are.

I was shocked at being banned because at the website the catholics said they were interested in hearing the truth rather than just their doctrine. I made the mistake of believing them. I won't do it again.  I don't know about you, but when someone offends my Lord and Savior, especially when it comes from the church itself, you better believe that i will speak up for Him. The very fact that i was banned showed that they considered any insinuation that the pope was a mere human being to be blasphemy. They then must see him as God. That is indeed blasphemy! The fact that they defend the pope more than Christ Himself shows who they really worship. Apparently, they think they are above being called to account. That is, of course, the sin of pride. "He exhalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exhalted." There is no free speech in the catholic church. It very much discourages that. That speaks for itself.

Well, I just ried to access the open website on catholicism and found out that i am not authorized to do so.! This is just an information page where listings of anything dealing with catholicism is open to the public. Any one of you could access that page, PROVIDED you believe in the infallibilty of the pope. I'm beginning to be truly frightened. I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany. Where is this coming from?

A moments thought would have revealed that there are few attacks on Christ here, and plenty of defendents, but many unchristian attacks on the RCC and its members.


Just in case youv'e forgotten, I'm not Catholic and I don't "adhere to their doctrine."


Dealt with perfectly adequately by Michael in other threads.

Dealt with perfectly adequately in other threads.

::)
Do you want few to be saved?  I know some people want to feel 'special' in that way, but its very sad.  If you're interested in debating this one (which I dont think is covered elsewhere) then I'm happy to have a shot, but the fact that you're ignoring threads where other of points are addressed indicates that you're only interested in attacking blindly.


No they don't.


And?   In reality though, while JPII is admirable man of God, its the office that holds the respect, not the man.


There's not one that disagrees with Jesus' words, only with your interpretation of Jesus' words.

You clearly don't know many Catholics very well.


No, they consider certain statements made by the Pope - those that are made ex-cathedra (which are few and far between) to be infallible.  Everything else the Pope does is as fallible as anyone else.

 You seem to be under the impression that Catholics go on and on about the Pope all the time, and barely mention Christ.   I can assure you that is the complete opposite of the truth.  I teach in a Catholic school, and I've never heard the Pope mentioned once in the school setting, and only once in the diocesan context refering to something particularly relevent that he said during his visit to Australia in 1995.


Blackeyedpeas might be interested to know that the fact that he bans certain topics from discussion on this forum proves he is perpetuating false beliefs.


Hang on a minute.  A website is only as public as the owners wish it to be - they are not obliged to give you a forum to attack them and their faith. If you walk into a private club then you have to abide by the rules of the club, just as the posters here have abide by the rules of ChristiansUnite.  To compare this to Nazi Germany just makes you look paranoid. There is plenty of freely accessable information on the RCC in the public domain.

Did you go in there saying, "I believe you are wrong about ... because ..." and engage in a reasoned debate, listening to their counter arguments and responding appropriately and politely,  or did you go in blindly attacking that which you don't even understand as you do here?

No it doesn't.  It shows they considered you to be offensive and not a positive contributor to their forum.  Your suggestion of why they considered you to be that is unsupported supposition.


What makes you think you can call them to account when you don't even understand what you are talking about?

When an atheist comes in here attacking Christianity without understanding it and carrying on like you do, he gets pretty short shrift from the moderator (and everyone else) and gets banned pretty quickly, and rightly so.  Does that prove Christianity is wrong - no.  It doesn't prove anything at all except that the poster broke the rules of the forum.



Perhaps you might like to tell us which forum you are talking about.

it seems idolatrous to revere anyone but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  the NT is chock full of warnings against idolatry.  Be confident that God knows all of our hearts, and will judge every man in the end.

Worship is reserved for God, but there is clearly a level of respect due to those who do a better than average job of following His will down here.  Reverence is nothing more than respect or honour in a religious context, and we are clearly told to respect certain people.

If you choose to redefine reverence, veneration, etc, as worship and then condemn it you are twisting the meaning of those words as used by Catholics, and attacking a straw man.

I'm not entirely sure of the degree of reverence people have for the pope, but I do get the impression that some think that he is some kind of intermediary between man and God.  Respect is one thing, worshipful reverence is another.

In my experience most Catholics don't give a second thought to the Pope most of the time, let alone worship.

I repeat, reverence does not imply worship, however much you may want it to.

I think most believers are concerned that what is proclaimed in the RCC does NOT lead to biblical salvation. The cccatechism declares that Mary is essential to salvation. It further declares that one must be water baptized as a member of that organization, etc. etc. In a typical Rosary Mary is prayed to 10 times more than our High Prist, the Lord Jesus Christ!

It is not the people who have been duped into believing those heresies that believers have disdain for, but on the contrary, it is because of agape love for them that we wish for them to be set free from the bondages of that organization.

aw

I'm saved by Christ, not by the Bible.


AFAIK, (not having a catechism to hand), it says Mary played an essential role in salvation - which she did.  Without Mary's acceptance of God's role for her, Christ would not have been born.

Which is not unscriptual.  Or was Philip acting unscripturally?  Water baptism isn't essential, btw, its normative.

Which might be a problem if it were the only prayer someone said, but it shouldn't be, and isn't intended to be.  As I've said, I work in a Catholic school where prayer is frequent and I've yet to come across one not directed directly to one or all of the Trinity.

So far you haven't identified a single heresy that the RCC is guilty of, but revealed the depth of your misundertanding of Catholic theology and practice.  You characature the Catholic understanding, and then attack that straw man.

Heidi,


If that was true it would indeed be blasphemy, but I suspect you unloaded on them without fully understanding the position of the pope. And if you watched a 3 hour documentary about the pope on A&E, I'd assume you understand how Catholics do not worship the pope.


No. It reflects who non-Catholics spend their time attacking. If people spent as much time trashing Christ on these forums as they do the papacy, then you'd see just as much, if not more people rising to the occassion.


Again simply not true, and since when does a single website become representative for a faith encompassing 1 billion+ adherents?

You said you had no prior knowledge that Catholics referred to the pope as holy father, a very basic and commonly known fact, and now proclaim to know that there is no free speech within the church you were just moments ago admitting some ignorance about. Being upset does no entitle us to assumptions about other faiths.

I'd like to view the other website you're referring to. Can you leave the address so others can check it out as well?

Catholics say they don't worship the pope just like Muslims say they don't worship Mohammed. But it is Mohammed's words that allah even exists. Therefore, their whole faith relies on his credibility alone!

If catholics do not worship the pope, then why do they feel the need to call the pope "Holy Father"? What is the reason behind it? What purpose does it serve? If they call the pope "Hoy Father" then what do they call God?

I would love to embrace the catholic church but its focus is placed more on the clergy and Mary than on Christ Himself. Again, what is the purpose in it? I don't hear reverence for Christ. I hear reverence for the clergy. How is that not idol worship? For some reason they want people to believe that it is they who forive sins at baptism. Oh, I know they say it's from God but who has the power to tell God what to do? God gives the Holy Spirit to whomever He pleases whenever He pleases.

There are millions of people who were baptized and are atheists. I was baptized as an infant and didn't have a clue who Christ was until I receieved the Holy Spirit 37 years later. If I had received the Holy Spirit at baptism as the catholics claim, then rejected it, then how could I have received it later in life? According to Christ, this is impossible because He said that the only unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit. Their argument that people can become unsaved once they're saved also contradicts Jesus's words that "No one can snatch them out of my hand."

The bible warns us about false teachers and tells us to use discernment.  If we blindly accept everything anyone who claims he has the knowledge of God says, then we are in danger of being deceived. I just saw a documentary on the Ku Klux Klan who claim that they are followers of Christ. But their fruits show otherwise. So fo the fruits of the catholic church. It's based on dogma, fear, and idol worship. Those are not the fruits of the spirit. They also refer to themselves as the catholic religion or the catholic faith instead of the Christian faith. This also shows where their values are. We are supposed to be one in Christ, not one in the pope. Do they see themselves as some kind of a cult? Then why do they isolate themselves?

There was a recent editiorial letter sent in by a staunch catholic lady. She was absolutely livid about what a young protestant man had asked her after they both were leaving the PASSION movie- his offense was in asking, "Are you born again?" This attitude is frequent in the RCC or CC if you prefer.

The John Kerry question with communion and all sorts of other "HAPPENINGS" are only symptoms of what this organization really is all about.

aw

aw,

please enlighten me as to what is the John Kerry question with communion is.

Surely. There has been quite a furor raised in this regard recently as he claims to be a devout catholic while actively supporting abortion and the the right of a woman to choose that procedure. He is for partial birth abortions, but claims that he has the right to vote HIS CONSCIENCE in spite of what the catholic church doctrine requires.

The cc is considering a procedure that will determine if a POLITICIAN should be denied COMMUNION if they are for some things expressly forbidden by the cc; eg., ABORTION.

He has also apparently violated another cc doctrine with regard to his first wife and their divorce. Still further grounds for him being denied communion.

He should just become a protestant and go to the largest denomination(Baptists) where he would be welcomed and would garner more votes.(Just make sure it is also a predominatly African-American Assembly- tongue is in my cheek)

aw

thanks!

Heidi,

I'd still like to see that website...

Sure. It does raise some dicey questions and the various cc representatives on television are "at each other's throats" about how to hanfdle the situation. I think Kerrey would do himself and all of us a favor by not trying to appear so religious. It has been obviously staged to curry favour for his campaign.

aw

Corpus,
I just typed in catholic church and a listing of websites came up. I clicked on Catholics online. Their website includes a forum on which people can post. As long as you call the pope Holy Father and the priests Father, you are welcomed there. If you disagree with the notion that they can forgive sins then you are not welcomed there.

And...?
Christianity's faith rests on the credibility of the Bible, but you don't worship that, I hope.


In recognition of the very special job God has called him to do.


See above.  When someone or something is set apart for God it's reasonable to give it or them special honour and respect, just as Gabriel honoured Mary.  I dare say you treat your Bible with a level of respect beyond that you give to any ordinary book.

The word Holy doesn't imply worship, and isn't reserved for God, it's reserved for that which is of God.

God, Lord, Holy Father, Father, Heavenly King, etc, etc.   Anything we call God is pathetically inadequate and (expect for God itself) are titles "borrowed" from worldly relationships.


How do you know this, when you didn't even know what Catholics call the Pope?  There are words to describe people who speak and act from ignorance like that.

The sad fact is that there are some Catholics in certain times and places who have put more focus than they should on the clergy and on Mary, but they don't represent the whole Church or its official teaching.

When?   How often have you been into Catholic services or a Catholic school?  In my experience, the reverence for Christ puts many protestants to shame and far outweighs any reverence for Mary, the clergy or anyone else.


Because reverence is not worship, however much you want it to be.


They aren't telling God what to do, they are acting with the authority that God gives them.  You are the one trying to tell God what to do, by demanding that He work in a way that makes instant sense to you.


No-one is saying otherwise.


There are a heap of ways of interpreting that.  I don't know which is official Catholic teaching.


No, He said the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, without defining what that is.

No-one snatched them - they walked away.



It's certainly not based on fear anymore - if it ever was.  Can't say the same for those churches who still preach "Hell-fire and damnation" sermons though.

All churches (except, maybe the quakers) are based on dogma's.  How do you have any church which doesn't have certain doctrines that you have to believe.   Or maybe you don't know what dogma means.

As for the idol worship, it simply isn't true.


The name Catholic Church does recognise Christ, since the Chuch is the Body of Christ.  It's impossible to be the Church without Christ. There has been a period in a few protestant dominated western countries where Catholics have avoided calling themselves Christians to distance themselves from extream evangelical Christians, but those days are pretty much over and were never true in Catholic dominated countries.  The Catholics I work with are proud to call themselves Christian, and the schools documents do refer to it repeatedly as being a Christian school.

It should be remembered that Christian isn't a Christ given name for those who follow Him.  The early church didn't call itself Christian, Paul never called himself a Christian.  Its a form of abuse that the Church eventually took over for itself.

You seem to be demanding that the RCC work in the way you want, use the names you want, limit God to what you understand and use your definitions all the time.

And we are.


Defintely not.

In what way are they isolating themselves?  Welcoming people into their churches and schools isn't very isolating.  Making the churches teachings and operation open for all to see isn't very isolating.

Since you don't say why she said she was offended it's hard to comment, but you need to remember that Catholics use different language to protestants.  

How is the fact that RCC believes absolutely that abortion is murder and wants its members to tow that line wrong?  And why would you trust a polititian to represent the church fairly?

less talk more rock

Just respond to the ccc 889 and 890. Even the cc catechisms are inconsistent in what is presented.

The entire foundation is wrong to begin with- Peter was not the first pope and I challenge you to present one shred of scriptural evidence that he even visited Rome. In the entire scriptural record where people who are addressed as being in Rome and apostles named, Peter's name is always conspicuously lacking. Surely someone of his stature would be named????

My view is that the RCC is indeed ecclesiastical Babylon and the Anti-christ will certainly use it. Christ is preached in some fashion and perhaps a few are saved, but to be forewarned is to be foreaermed/

aw

Ebia,
For someone who is so quick to accuse others of being foolish and ignorant, I've never seen so many ignorant responses in one post as there are in your last post. If you don't see the contradictions in them already, then pointing them out to you is a complete waste of time.  I'll pray for you.

How many "ignorant responses" can there be in a 4 line post?

Or did you mean the one before that?  Perhaps the fact that you get abusive with anyone who disagrees with you points to the reason you got booted off that board.

Let's face it, the only time anyone says something like this: "If you don't see the contradictions in them already, then pointing them out to you is a complete waste of time" its because they can't form a reasoned response to the post.

What's your problem with 889 and 890?  Maybe you just don't understand them.

AFAIK off the top of my head the bible doesn't say he did visit Rome.  That doesn't prove that he didn't.  The bible doesn't say that John Paul II lives in Rome either, but I'm pretty sure you'll find it's true.

Depends - maybe he wasn't there at the time the letter was written.  Or their were two (or more congregations) and the letter wasn't written to his.  Or any number of other reasons.


Your view on the matter would be more interesting if it were based on fact instead of misinformation and prejudice.

There is far too much error in the RCC to even begin to discuss it on a forum such as this. I am going to drop it as Christ is proclaimed and a few are probably true children of God.

However, I do obseve the arrogance of a large percentage who belong to that organization. That is ALL that it is- an organization. It is NOT, as they claim, the body of Christ. Membership in that organization has nothing in this world to do with salvation. The Pope is just a man with absolutely nothing special about him at all, except that he may be a fellow believer. To call him the Magesterium of the church as the body of Christ is blasphemous on its face.

It may even be a CULT, since for salvation, if anything is added to the finished work of Christ it is, by most defintions, a CULT.  A SUMMARY: Christ + nothing = salvation; Christ + anything or anyone = DAMANTION. (John 3:16, Eph 2:8-10)

It is so full of non-scriptural heresies and blasphemies that it, as I have said, would be too long, but I will name a few- baptismal regeneration, trabsubstantiation, prayers for the dead, purgatory, celibacy, and the veneration of Mary.

I will end this by saying that the "SIGN OF THE CROSS" is nothing more than the mystic "TAU" of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. It originated from the letter "T" which is the initial name for "TAMMUZ" as used in the BABYLONOIAN MYSTERIES for the same MAGIC PURPOSES as the Romish church employs it.

Eternity hangs in the balance so, "All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. For there is no other name in heaven or earth whereby one might be saved. For by GRACE are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the GIFT of God.

To declare that the catholic church is the dispenser of that grace is both blasphemous and repugnant!

All of which is related to the RCC and not intended to be directed toward an individual. If you are in it, I reccomend that you prayerfully consider leaving it asap.

aw

Amen, Aw! One of the reasons so many people leave the catholic church is that they teach that we can lose our salvation! Talk about pushing people out the door! Their faith is very rocky indeed! They obviously do not have very much faith in the power of the Holy Srirt, but instead rely on man to save himself! If he could, then we wouldn't NEED forgiveness from Christ! But if they some day decide to put their faith in Christ instead of the pope, they could understand why Jesus said, "No one can snatch them out of my hand." Again, this idol worship is the hallmark of a cult. They see themselves as a cult or why would they consider themselves as catholics before Christians? They are definitely setting themselves apart from Christians.

"But I'll throw in a few more vague, unsupported, accusations and lies before I go."



Thats not the definition of a cult, and the RCC doesn't do that, so wrong on both counts.


What are you, a mormon or something?  (It is the mormon's who insist he died on stake not a cross isn't it? Or is that the JW's - I get those to mixed up a bit?)

There are only so many symbols in the world.  Just about every symbol in Christianity exists in one or another pre-Christian religion.  To prove what you want to prove, you've got to prove that a link exists - that the group you want to condemn actually got the symbol from a pagan group.  All youv'e managed is guilt by association.

If you really gave a stuff, you'd be prepared to learn what the Catholic church actually teaches, and address that properly.

And I'm sure Michael would love to defend that against anything you can throw against in on any of the many threads devoted to the topic.  So if you've actually capable of defending your view, there's your chance.


How's that pushing people out the door?


Attacking straw men again, because any Catholic knows perfectly well that only Christ can save them.


It is. You keep repeating this accusation without ANY supporting evidence.  Put up, or shut up.

It appears that you don't.

Inventing the idol worship again, without support.  ::)


They don't.


Supporting evidence, please.

Ebia, were you ever born again? I don't hear the Holy Spirit in you at all! The Holy Spirit doesn't tell people to shut up or that they are ingorant fools. Your posts have proven my point exactly about the catholic church! Most catholics I know put their faith in the pope rather than the Holy Spirit. If your faith was in the Holy Spirit, then its fruits would come out of you. Instead you put your faith in the "rules and regulations of men", as Christ put it. You have also not shown faith in the Holy Spirit because you think man's will to walk away is stronger then the power of the Holy Spirit! Again, that is what the catholic's teach. I hear a lot of desperation in you, not faith, hope, love, patience, joy, and self-control. Those are the fruits of the spirit. I'll pray that some day you can come to know christ personally. Then you will know what we are talking about.

Heidi,
Your constant attacks against the Catholic Church do nothing
but show how little you know about her teachings or her members. I have seen your postings on the web site you are talking about, and the reason you were banned is because of
your abusive ways. To be honest i really don't see the Holy Spirit in you.
I've been a Catholic all my life, been around them all
my life, and i have yet to come across any that put their faith in the Pope as you claim. We're well aware who we need to put  our faith in, it seems you think that we're the ignorant fools. By the way have you been born again? the biblical way?
I see in you a person who likes to throw out alot of accusations and missunderstood thoughts on what the Catholic Church believes, teaches, defends etc. but seem to have very little real understanding aside from your own hatred and lack of knowledge. I pray that you will learn to be more charitable and take time to learn a little about that love, joy, patience and self control of which you speak. Then you will know how what we're talking about.

                                                                                                         

"put up or shut up" is a common figure of speach - back up or accusations or stop making them.


's interesting, because I'm not Catholic.   Show's how carefully you read stuff and how valid your conclusions are.

I simply find calling the pope "Holy Father" blasphemous to my Lord and Saviour. I think it's offensive to our Lord.I understand why Jesus said not to call anyone on earth 'father'. You may not. That is your perrogative. It seems to bother you more when the catholic church is attacked than your Lord and Saviour, Rich. Again, that shows what you value more. How is that my fault?  

Heidi,
 It find bothersome when anyone attacks either one, i guess
i must have some really mixed up values eh? Why is it that unless everyone agrees with you they're blasphemous, offensive, folks who according to you must not know and understand the Bible? If according to the way sola scriptura works you have no right to explain anything to me, i just need to read the Bible and whatever my interpretation is it must be correct. If thats not the way it works than it sure is a mystery as to how there got to be so many differing beliefs in such a short time (well since Martin Luther anyway). Just because you can't understand why we call the Pope Holy Father and continue to try to push your interpretation of particular verses to fit your understanding you don't have to get so hostile or judgemental. Again it shows that apparently you can not stand to be wrong, or even listen to what others are trying to tell you. Again i know where my values lie and so does the good Lord, i guess we"ll all have to answer someday. Boy for a web site called Christians unite there sure seems to be everything but that.        
                                            Peace in Christ

I guess you didn't understand what i call blasphemous. Jesus said not to call anyone 'father' because we have only one Father and He is in heaven. I find it blapshemous that not only does the catholic church ignore His words, but they replace Him with the pope. Apparently you agree with them instead of Jesus which is why you don't consider that blasphemous, nor understand why it IS blasphemous.  

If your interpretaion of Christ's words agrees with Christ then you are worshipping Christ. But if it specifically contradicts Christ like the catholic church does, then you and they are calling Him a liar. I take offense at this. You obviously do not. His words cannot be any clearer.

Instead of attacking me personally, which seems to be easy for you, you would fare better at trying to understand Christ's words instead of attacking the people who believe Him. As for being right, a person can only be right if he's right. I am far more interested in the truth than in being right. If I am right, for some reason that bothers you...a lot. Otherwise, the subject wouldn't have come up at all. This isn't a game of who is right or wrong, but a search for the truth. I have nothing to defend but Christ's words. NOBODY can convince me He's wrong.  

The word's of, the church at Rome's, first "Pope", Peter:

 Acts 10:25.  And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
 26.  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

This does not appear to be a man that would refer to himself as, "Holy Father". Or want anyone to refer to him as such.

Have the "Popes" since Peter displayed this true holiness of "being just a man"? Or do they except bowing down to them as if on a higher plane than the other church of Rome members? Do they put themselves on a pedestal?

Would Peter who "also am a man" and God's apostle, through whom the Holy Spirit has brought to rembrance the teachings and doctrines of Christ, be such a respector of himself or persons?

Ollie

Calling oneself the Holy Father and infallible is not seeing oneself as just a man. The only one who deserves those titles is God Himself. We are all sinners, no better or worse then the next guy. The most humble of us is the one who sees the degree of man's sinful nature and knows that none of us deserves the title "Hoy Father". He gives no credit to himself but to God alone for his goodness. Such a man would be sickened at being called a holy father. that's why Peter responded that he was just a man. the catholic church disagrees with him. I do not.

Heidi,
    The only one i see that is apparently infallible is you. Anyone can take scripture out of context and use it for what they claim to be the truth. The Jehovah's Whitnesses will quote 1 Timothy 2:5 as proof Jesus is not God, but we know thats not true don't we? Just before Mathew 23:9 in Mathew 23:8 it says to call no man teacher (rabbi) yet everyone seems to use that term with no problem. Let me ask you this, do you believe in the real presence in the communion you recieve or is just a symbol? Was He talking symbolically or when He said in John 6 "My flesh is real food:My blood is true
drink,"etc. everyone listening to Him understood he meant them literally many left because they couldn't grasp this teaching, did He go after them and say no I'm only talking symbolically or did he let them go? There are texts in the Bible that say Jesus is man and others that say he is God. We don't throw out either, both are true. Jesus says we are to call no man 'father', yet Christ Himself, St. Stephen,St. James, and St. Paul all refer to men as 'father'. I am guessing
by your statements that you think we believe the Pope is infallible in every thing he says and does? If thats the case you really should study up on what you think it is the Catholic
Church teaches. You have yet to show where what the Church teaches contradicts scripture, seem just seem to get very upset when someone points out that YOUR interpretation may not be correct. As far as personally attacking you, i used the same words you used to ebia. If there is any attacking going on its usually on your end. If you say its not a matter of right and wrong and that your more interested in the truth than in being right i guess i always tought that the truth and right would be the samething, because if your wrong and what you claim is wrong it can't be the truth. I suggest that in your search for the truth you
try not to be so judgmental of others, and please may'be tke the time to read the whole context of something before you
start making accusations. Remember that anyone can take a single verse out of the Bible and make it say what THEY want.
This happens rather frequently anymore just look how many
'word churches' there are out there now, and they each have a little differant understanding of scripture than the one they left before.

And what do you think He meant by not calling anyone 'father'?

 ;)  You GO Heidi!  I personally detest the worship of men to the point where I get steam blowing out of my ears at the mere insinuation that a man might be accepting worship.  If I were God,  ;D and I'm not, but if I were God, I would be very jealous of men that gave any indication that they were worthy of worship.  And if I were God,  ;D and I'm not any man that gave any indication that he was worthy of worship would be in danger of my heal fire--of course the raging fury of God's love is pretty scary.  So, I have to admit that people that go ahead and let folks bow to 'em have got to have at the least lots of intenstinal fortitude.  Anyway, I'm not saying you're right offending folks because there's steam coming out of your ears.  I'm just saying, I've got steam coming out of my ears over the same topic over and over and over and folks wont get it.  Alas, waiting util someone is ready to listen before you speak is called, "carrying the cross"

Love You!

Amen!

Thanks you guys! It's great to be on a forum with true born again Christians who worship only our Lord and Saviour as the only way to our Holy Father!

Bravo Heidi, well said. You have a true gift. So tell us, how long have you been able to read men’s hearts and know their intentions? ::)

Jesus said, "by their fruits you will reocgnize them." Is that not true?

By what fruit would we recognize you by? It seems that if somebody has a different interpretation of something from you they are blasphemous, lying, idol worshipping, bunch of heathens. It would be nice to know how long you've had the
gift of reading mens hearts, and the even more impressive gift of being able to judge them. I have always been taught that that was Gods place. So in answer to your question yes we surely will be recognized by our fruits. I don't claim to be anything more than a sinner in need of the the gift that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gave to us by going to the cross.
But i can't sit by and allow people to make such utterly ignorant statements that they apparently know little about without trying to correct their mistaken ideas on what i believe. By the way what is it that makes a true born again Christian? As i asked you before have you been born again the Biblical way? You really do need to do a little homework
on what it is you think the Catholic Church teaches. You really do need to look at the whole context of scripture before you make the claims you do.
                                        ps
                                          i wonder why we were told in
                                         the ten commandments to
                                       " honor our mother and father "
                                           hmm maybe that should be
                                               pops, dad, sir, anything
                                               but 'father'
                                                                       

Yes, as Rich said, What fruits do you see? Clearly, not the same fruits as everyone else.

You are the one jumping around pointing fingers, throwing out lies and accusing others of all kinds of heresy and blasphemy. What kind of fruit is that? Are Christians in the belittling business now? Did I miss that memo?

What have i acuused any one of? Jesus warns us not to call anyone 'father' and I believe Him. If the catholic church does that, then how is that my fault? Is it not true that they do that? Who is the one who is lying? It is the catholic church who uses the term heresy quite often and points fingers. Is that not true? In fact, they now want to deny communion to John Kerry because he is a sinner. Are all the rest who take communion not sinners? The actions of the catholic church speak for themselves. We are all accountable for our actions, the catholic church included. Again, Jesus told us "by their fruits, you will recognize them." Again, I believe Him.

You are comparing your self to an entire Church, now? The Catholic Church doesn’t “Point finger” they make informed descriptions once they have all the facts. The Church has an army of Researchers and investigators to get all the facts. You are talking about things and people you know nothing about, and calling it all heresy before getting any facts, and you aren’t even trying to hear the other side.

Jesus also wanted us to cut off the parts of our body that make us sin, why don’t you go and do that, then we can talk about the other things Jesus wanted us to do.

You are the one who keeps saying it it blasphamy to call any one on earth father. It has been pointed out to you that you are not taking the whole context of what Jesus was saying at that particular time and place, and to whom he was addressing. Read ALL of Mathew 23: 1-11, if you have too,read several times. It has also been pointed out that Paul
used the word father on numerous occasions, my guess is thats because he knew what Jesus was talking about and  in what context. Was he a blasphemer? Its not our fault that certain individuals read scripture in a very dangerous way. Thats why the Church has had to use the term heresy, to
correct problems that have came up because of private interpretation, misinterpretaions, personal agendas etc.
As for denying communion to John Kerry, read 1 cor.11:17-34
it can't be any clearer than that, yes we are all sinners, but before we are to receive the Lords Body and Blood we are to examine ourselves, admit that we are sinners and ask for his forgiveness. John Kerry seems to think his pro abortion stance is not a very grave sin, so it would be taking communion in an unworthy manner. So if the actions of the Church upset you on this issue it is you who is not heeding
the Lords words. The Church is following them just as she should in this case. As you say we are accountable for our actions, i'm very secure in my actions and those of the Catholic Church, yes members of the Church have made mistakes, done terrible things, acted in manners unfitting their positions, but as you said we are all sinners and only the good Lord knows what is in each mans heart, everyone will have to answer for their actions. You can't blame the Catholic Church for the actions of her members anymore than you can say that because we're Americans we're all greedy, have no morals, and think that if it feels good do it type people, even though hollywood would like to portray us as so.
 

I am simply obeying Christ's words when i don't call anyone on earth 'father'. The church can disobey Him if they want, but i am free to consider it blasphemy.

Yes, we are all sinners, including the pope and the priest, none of us worthy of being called infallible, our spiritual fathers, much less, our Holy Father. Paul's reference to fathers is in regard to earthly descendants of Abraham. He does NOT say, ANYWEHRE, that those fathers are our holy fathers, nor would he ever be inclined to do so because of his reverence for his Father in heaven. You never did answer my question, Rich, about what you think Jesus meant by not calling anyone on earth 'father'. You're more interested in attacking me instead of making a rational defense of what you consider Christ's meaning.

The catholic church gives communion to people who say "Hail Mary's" when they have sinned. this is also not scriptural but it doesn't stop the church from giving them communion.

The Nazi party was also a large party. Does that mean they were infallible and knew best about what is right and wrong? Your argument about the church being large has nothing to do with whether or not it is scriptural.

Hey Heidi- I love my family and friends. When I go grocery shopping, I only bring home the finest, freshest fruits for them to eat.
Nothing wrong with being a fruit inspector in the Spiritual sense either.

This morning's sermon was on Mark 7:1-23. It could easily be applied to many churches, especially the RCC.

I really didn’t read your post that thoroughly, kind of scanned thru it. It seems like textbook anti-Catholic. Plus, then you claim to be following what Jesus said, and still have not cut off the parts of your body that cause you to sin, it kind of makes me wonder. You say we are all sinners, so doesn't that mean you sin, too? If so, do you still have all your limbs intact?

You have all of your facts wrong, and even if I correct you, you will tell me I am wrong, because you seem to have this idea that you know more about the Catholic faith then Catholic. ::)

You did say one thing we can all agree on "The pope is a sinner." Ya think? When did anyone say he wasn't?

I could point out many verses that will show that the Church is indeed infallible, but you would just spew more worn out anti-Catholic notions. Just as there are many verses that show calling a man 'father' is not going against what the Lord said. It doesn't matter, as Tibby said you will not listen nor take the time to investigate the info given you. There seems to be alot of people here that claim they know what the Catholic Church is, but from their posts they know very little and sadly even less about scripture or the meaning behind what is being taught. It would help if you would at least pick up copy of the catechisim, not to try to convert you mind you, but at least than you could look for yourself what it is that she teaches instead what it is you think she teaches.


Once again would you please look the word holy up in the dictionary,- ' living according to a strict or highly moral religous
or spiritual system, saintly'. Now if i get this right you have just stated Paul was refering to earthly fathers, so you admit that it is alright to call certain people 'father'. Well if thats the case than when we add 'holy' as used in the description above it does nothing to take away from God our HOLY FATHER. Just because you can't tell in which context to use holy, don't assume that everyone has that problem. The context that Mathew is addressing in 23 is the sin of pride among the scribes and Pharisees. In their pride they pointed to themselves rather than to God the Father from whom they received their true fatherhood. As stated by, Tibby i know of no Catholic who thinks the Pope has not sinned, he goes to confesion just like the rest of us do. By the way he does not call himself holy father, we do (but we mean it in the definition used above).

Good point, Justme. Thanks for bringing this us. It is what the RCC has been trying to say for years!

My Catholic mother-in-law would disagree with you and tibby.

Darn, and i thought we were all perfect! Just kidding. There are bound to be people of every church or religous group who take things to extremes or are ill informed. May'be she should do a little studying of her own on what the Church teaches.

My mother-in-law has been a Catholic all of her 60 years on this earth. Unfortunately, she is as well educated on the Bible as the overwhelming majority of the Catholics I have met.

The pope accepts the title "Hoy Father" quite willingly. All he has to say is "do NOT call me Holy Father and you better believe the tradition would be changed!

As for saying that i do not understand the catholic denomination, how in the world do you know what i have studied and what i have not studied, Rich? I have read the catechism and learned a lot more than i want to. On every Christian forum and catholic website I've been on, they clearly believe salvation is earned and can be lost. That does NOT agree with Christ's words. They also venerate Mary and other men. These are facts. To deny them would be a lie. You've accused me of lying many times just like atheists and Muslims accuse me of lying when i say that Jesus is the only way to God. I've found that usually the people who accuse others of lying are the liars themselves. What have i said about the catholic church that is not true?  In 1855, Pope Leo declared that Mary was a virgin all her life which is NOT scriptural in the least! These are all man-made doctrines which have been instituted by men. Where did Peter or Paul EVER say to worship them as Saints? Where did they EVER say to pray to Mary or other dead people? This is all made up stuff that diverts our attention from Christ. Again, we have different fathers so we're never going to agree. There's then np point in continuing this exchange.

Yeah, Rich, color me surprised. I thought all Catholics where well-versed in the Catecism and wise is the ways of the Lord ::) Tell me, justme, do you also stop eating when you had a taste of something bad? Don't make these a Hasty Generalization. Your In-laws personal belief doesn't prove anything but that you marrying into a family of people who care little for the faith. ::)

How in the world do we know what you have studied and what you have not studied, Heidi? Simple. Unlike Justme's family, we  know what we believe. So, when you tell us something like "Catholics worship Mary," you can't back it up, as we have yet to meet a Catholic who does worship Mary, and we know by their fruits they are Christian. We know what you have and have not studied by your fruits, Heidi. By the words that come from your fingertips, we can tell you know nothing of Catholics or what they believe.

Oh the catholcis say they worship Christ just like the Muslims say they worship allah, but all of Islam puts their faith in Mohammed's words that allah even exists! Why in the heck to catholics even think about Mary, as if she died for us? Jesus all but ignored her, yet the catholics venerate her! Jesus said we are all brothers and sisters, no one better than another! So why do you contradict Jesus and put some people on pedestals? THAT is idol worship. That is my whole point! Playing God, deciding what human being is BETTER than another. All human beings have fallen short of the glory of God. The catholics have decided that Mary is mightier than others, a virgin all her life, no less. If she never slept with Joseph, then she ignored what Paul said about not depriving one's spouse of a sexual relationship. This obsession with Mary is bizarre and completely unscriptural!  This putting PEOPLE on pedestals and calling them saints, even people who did horrible things in the name of God, like previous popes. Statues of PEOPLE in the CHURCH! I expect statues of people in the pagan world because the pagans do "heroize" people because they don't believe in God. They have no choice. Only God decides at judgment day who sits closer to Him. But the catholic church thinks it IS God which is evident in the catechism so IT decides who is holy and who is not. Who do they think they are? Again, I do not raise ANY man above another and neither does Paul. Christ said, "No one is good but God alone." Again, the ccatholic church apparently disagrees with Him on that also.  

Oh, my in-laws aren't the only Catholics I know. I've known many, many Catholics who do believe they worship Mary.

Now, I've had people on many message boards claim that these are just uninformed or misguided Catholics.
If they are so misinformed, why isn't the church doing more to inform them?

You are right i don't know what you've studied, but If you used the same approch to studying the catechism as you apparently do the Bible i can can see how your having problems. Jesus all but ignored his mother eh? On what do you base this conclusion? Do you honestly think everything that happened in Jesus life is written in the Bible? I'm pretty sure that even the Bible says otherwise. You may need to break out that old dictionary on the word good also you seem
have a misunderstanding on that as well. One more question for you, what did the first Christians use for a Bible since it wasn't compiled as we know until several hundered after Christs death? Do you think that they may have used Sacred Tradition, word of mouth and so on? Or is that anouther one of those bizzare Catholic inventions? No need to answer i'm pretty sure i know your response to that.

               Justme, thats a pretty broad assumption that most Catholics are not well educated in the Bible.I've met more than my share of evangelical, fundamentalist, mainline protestant, and any number of the other so called 'word church' members who don't have a clue either.  Obviously if reading scripture and having it be simlpe to understand were the case,there wouldn't be 20,000-30,000 different sects all
with a different take on things now would there? I'm sure that the churches you and Heidi attend have the full truth above all others and are the fast lane to Heaven, or until something pops up that doesn't fit your way of thinking, and then you can always go church shopping for another that better fits what YOU want to hear.
                   
 Heidi, while you have the dicionary out look up venerate, and worship just so you know the difference, you seem to have trouble telling the differences between certain words and how
they can be used.

I do my best to help Christians understand the Word of God, so do most of the Christians I know.

I have tried very hard to refrain from making personal attacks because it does not make for a constructive conversation.

In quite a few posts, you have called others judgemental, yet you've failed to see the fact that you are judging them also. If you continue to pass judgements on others and then tell them not to be judgemental- what does that make you?

I have many times squirmed in my seat because the pastor said or read something in the Bible that made me feel conviction. Many Christians I know have felt convicted at times. I can't say the same is true of the Catholics I know.

 :'(   ;D  Now you guys are moving off the topic of Heidi's original BEEF with the man that calls himself "infalliable" and worthy of worship.  She's not whining about his "Title"!  Her Beef is that he puts himself in between man and God.  Ah, the anti-Christ wants to do that too.  

Yeah, cand, it is strange how Heidi and Justme are the ones ranting about Catholicism. To all the Catholics on this board, Christian in enough. But not for these 2. They are to busy ranting to realize how unchristian their behavior really is.  Honestly, guys, what is this obession? Did Catholics beat you both up as kids or something? What is with all the hostility. Does not Paul say in 1 Cor that God will take care of the unchristian? If Catholics are unchristian, what are you guys so worried about? God will take care of those who are not of Christ, but still do things in his name. Let God handle it. He doesn't need you to be is smiting stick. If Catholics are so evil, the God will rid them from the Earth.

I stand up for Christ because there are some former catholics who are seekers and want to truly hear Christ's message instead of indoctrination from the church. I have known so many former catholics who not only hate the church now but hate Christianity because they were judged so severely in the catholic church. I want them to know not to blame Christianity for the false teachings in the catholic church. They can still be saved if they come to Christ. They've got to hear Jesus's message somewhere. We're basically trying to undo the damage that these people received from the catholic church.

Point being? I know many, many more former protestants who became Catholic then the other way around. Hey, what do ya know, I am one of them!  ;D

Your friends left the church and hate it now? Why is that Rome’s fault? Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Do you think filling their heads with hateful factoids really HELPS them? It only fuels their hate. Only makes them more upset. Don't tell them why Catholicism is wrong, tell them why what you believe are right. If what you believe if the truly sent directly from God, they will be more then happy to join up with you, God will remove the scales of Catholicism from their eyes, and they will see the Truth of the matter.

    Candice,
         Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe the topic is about the title 'father' or 'holy father' , and for which she has been given many responses. Once again ignorance is rearing its ugly head, the Pope does NOT call himself infallible, and would correct any man or woman who worshipped him. He does not put himself between God and man, the only people i see doing that are the misinformed folks that keep claiming he does.For some reason they keep trying to place him there to fit their anti-Catholic agenda. So be it, as long as I know the difference,and all 1,000,000,001 Catholics Know the difference thats fine with me. Oops, i forgot, subtract one
justme's mother-in law is a little confused on how the whole thing works too.
       If your interested to know, the Pope is not infallible,
if he was to say for instance that the Red Sox were going to win the world series, or that it was going to rain cats and dogs, or anything relating to everyday things, its not any different than you or i saying it. If however he is talking from
the chair  of Peter  and it has to be matter of faith and morals
well then yes it is infallible, which is very Biblical, but i'm sure
i will get told otherwise. If you do some checking i'm not sure will find where Pope John Paul II has even made any infallible
statements.It just goes to show that people are once again making statements about what it is THEY think THEY know about the Catholic Church.
         I'm the one being judgemental eh? I have not once said that any of you were not Christian, or the anti-Christ,
just because people try to correct misconceptions and out right lies that are being said, and then asking for said people
to back up their claims. If thats the case than color me judgmental, but i guess that shouldn't matter anyway since
i'm not a ' true born again Christian' as Heidi pointed out.
        As said before you really should try to get your info
from someplace other than Jack Chick tracts, or if your not
getting it from there may'be you should help him write some new material, i hear he's looking for a few good writers.
       Obviously this whole debate is going nowhere so i
wish you peace and happiness and hope you will alwys stay
so committed to loving the Lord.
                                                Peace in Christ,
                                                           Rich

You're both wrong. This topic is about attacking Catholics for no other reason then the fact that they are Catholics. ;) :'(

Sorry, Tibby, but the people in the catholic church are humans no better or worse than the rest of us. They are simply victims of false teaching in the catholic church. It is those souls whom I am addressing. The do have a chance at salvation if they come to their real Holy Father, not the one they call their holy father.

You have admitted, Rich, that you believe the pope is infallible concerning spiritual matters. Sorry, but Jesus said, "No one is good but God alone." Only God is infallible. Again, Jesus gives all the credit for who he is to God, not to Himself. The pope is just as likely to misunderstand God's word as the rest of us precisely becase he is not perfect. Pope leo declared that mary didn't have sex with Joseph even though that is not scriptural. People who think he's infallible will believe him before they believe the bible, christ, and the Holy Spirit. that is why this theory of infallibility is so dangerous. we ae then worshipping the wrong person.

So Isaiah and Paul weren't passing on the infallible word of God?  The pope isn't supposed to be infallible on his own account, but as an instrument of God.



As does the Pope.

Perfectly true.  But the church trusts God to guide him when he speaks ex-cathedra.

Sorry - I must have missed the sex-scene in Luke's gospel.

On the contrary, the Pope tells them to believe the Bible, Christ and the Holy Spirit first.  

Ebia:


Those that have ears to hear, let them hear.

 ;)  We're not attacking Catholics.  We're saying we don't believe the Pope to be infallible--Christ said his body of believers will not fail to do His work!!  Not that some man made institution cannot make mistakes.

We aren't living out our lives based on the massive texts and hundreds of millions of new rules that the Catholics have handed down since Christ.  We wont swollow it and we wont allow people preaching that there is a man on earth worthy of Worship in this Christian forum without having something to say about it.  

Clearly that are man worshippers here and as long as they try to get us to swollow whole everything a mere man who calls himself infallible and worthy of worship--

Let us get our ideas of worship in perspective--True Worship of God is the way we live out our lives, the principles that we live by and make our minute by minute decisions by--this is the true form of worship.  Because we LOVE Jesus we live out His love here.  We find out how to live out His love based on the accounts of His life here on earth by the EYE WITNESSES THAT KNEW HIM!!

What Catholics want us to do is live out our lives and let the words of man guide our thoughts and our actions.  The Pope isn't an eye witness to Christ so we aren't examining his texts to find out how to know our Lord better.  When we examine every writing that a mere man thinks and we live it out in our lives, we call this worship of man.  PERIOD.

Man worshippers, be gone.  We wont worship man, we worship God alone!!!

and as long as there are folks in the debate section that insist that we have to live by the rules that men--even if they call themselves infallible and even if they state they are worthy of worship--WE WONT HAVE IT!!  Not in the debate section.   :P

Every Catholic apologist here (or anywhere else) has strenuously denied that Pope is worthy of worship.

None of which conflicts with Catholic teaching.  However, the Bible isn't the only way way we can learn about Christ. We should also be learning by our own relationship with him, and by what the body of Christ (the Church) can teach us about him.


Well, perhaps you should be.

You can call it what you like, but it isn't worship, and your calling it such doesn't make it so.

What is it then?

Tibby & ebia,
       Not to worry anymore, i've got a phone call into the Pope
He'll be hittin the button to shut their computers down anytime now! He can do that you know. Yea he's got a whole underground army of computer nerds that can do it at a moments notice. That'll show 'em you just wait and see.
                                                 Rich

Listening to the God given wisdom of others.

Hope you gave him an ear-full for taking so long about it.

Of course.  That's exactly what you do when you read St Paul, Isaiah, or any biblical scholar or theologian or preacher.

Then:
a. it wouldn't be God given
and
b. listening to it might be foolish, but it's still not worship.

Saying that Mary was a virgin all her life is not in the bible, ebia. So if the catholic church only passes on what's in the bible, why do they pass that along? Calling he pope "Holy Father" is not only not in the bible, it directly contradicts Christ's words, ebia. Elevating people to sainthood is not in the bible, ebia.  Attitudes about fasting again contradict Christ's words about fasting, ebia. Adorning the church with bronze statues of men contradicts the bible, ebia. Most of the rules in the catholic church are "teachings based on rules taught by men" (Christ's words). The non scriptural rules, rituals, and beliefs are exactly what we object to about the catholic church. if it did pass on scriptural mesages, I would have no problem with the catholic church.

One more AMEN!!!! Heidi

Brother Love :)

<:)))><

Excellent post Heidi! AMEN!

You keep saying these things are not in the bible, but not doing this isn't in the bible either, so we are at a crossroads. You are reading things into the bible that just arn't true. What about Fasting is wrong? Jesus makes it pretty clear we are to fast. We haven't a single "non scriptural rule." Our rules are the same rules observed by Peter, Paul and the rest of the early church. Look it up. You friends who wrote the NT seems to agree with us.



It does pass scriptural mesages, as we have shone you, but that didn't sway you.

When did Peter and Paul say that we should call a human "Holy Father?"

 ;D  Uh, Jesus had LOTS to say about Man-Made rules and What Jesus had to say about Man-Made Rules IS in the Bible.  Our rejection of Man-Made Rules IIIISSSSS in the Bible and very Biblical.  I guess the crux of the matter is this:  If a man says he has wisdom from God, we have the FREEEDOM to accept his words or REJECT his words.  This issue here is that the Catholics INSIST and are ADAMENT that we CANNOT reject what the Pope says because the are absolutely sure beyond any shout of a doubt that he is infallible because he says he is.  I've just got a big problem with a man coming along and saying that he can take away MY FREEDOM to decide whether or not he's full of himself.  The Pope and the Catholics insist that we are NOT FREE, No FREEDOM at ALL--they are adamant about saying that we do not possess one bit of freedom to reject what a mere man says.  Sorry, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free.  If you want to remain in slavery, you're free to do that too!  But don't try to take away my freedom just because you are in chains.   :P

On another note, there are litterally BILLIONS of true Christians that call themselves Catholics.  They have the common sense to not swallow everything whole that they hear and they live out Christ's love without arguing over doctrine.  That's admirable.  

chains for a higher cause--I've considered it.  If you really want to spend your lifetime caring for the homeless and the sick and feeding the poor, the Catholics will take you in and let you live out Christ's love under their establishment.  It's not all bad.  

But here in the debate section . . .  . ;D  We are FREE to speak our mind.   ;)

No-one's said that the church only teaches what is in the bible, but that the catholic church doesn't teach anything that contradicts the bible.  The bible doesn't say whether or not Mary remained a virgin.



So does calling your biological dad "father".


You clearly don't have the faintest idea about canonisation, which is just a process of recognising a few of those who are clearly saved.

etc.

Paul refered to himself as the [spiritual] father of others.

Paul referred to himself as the father of the gospel which he is, ebia. He was the first to spread it. But I don't call him "father", nor does he say to call him father, because he is not my spiritual father. He does not call himself our Holy Father or spiritual father. That is a title reserved for God alone.  

As for Mary being a virgin not being in the bible, my whole point is that if the catholic church thinks it's infallible, then they can make up anything they want and say it's true. Then people discard the bible in favor of the catholic church. That is the hallmark of a cult. David Koresh had many people fooled because what he said was not scriptural but people believed him instead of the bible. The true way of knowing whether something is coming from God or not is if it's in the bible. if it's not in the bible, then it's coming from men. Worshipping men as infallible is a cult. You either worship Jesus Christ or the catholic church because they contradict each other. It's obvious to me who you worship.

Wrong:
"for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."
father through the gospel, not of the gospel.


1.  It can't contradict the bible.
2.  It can't contradict anything said infallibly before.
3.  It can only be in matters of faith and morals.
4.  They have to justify it, and that justification is freely available for all to read.
So unlike cults (the morman's say) there are very heavy limitiations on what the church can say.

But the church has said infallibly that the bible is correct, that it is at the centre of the catholic faith, and that none of their other infallible statements can contradict it.  So they clearly are not free to discard it.

That can't be true, but it contradicts the bible itself.  The bible clearly says that it isn't the sole medium for truth.


No-one is worshipping any men, so please either prove they are or stop saying it.

You still haven't provided us with a single contradiction between the bible and the catholic church, only contradictions between your poor understanding of the bible and your even worse understanding of the catholic church.


You've still got this to answer, too:

Where in the bible does it say that Mary never had sex wirh Joseph? If it's not scriptural, how do the catholics justify Mary's virginity except through their imagination?

If the church believes the bible is infallible then why do they fast openly at lent instead of in private like Jesus said to do? Why do they call the pope "Holy Father" like Jesus said not to do.You still have not answered this question. What do YOU think He meant by those words? Why does the church put men on pedestals and adorn the church with bronze statues of men?Where does the bible say to pray to or for dead men? Jesus makes it very clear that he who hears the word and does not believe Him, has lost his salvation. "When the owner of the household closes the door, He will say, 'I never knew you. Get away from me you evildoers!" According to the catholic church, if someone comes to church without Christ living inside of him the PRIEST can forgive them of their sins. This also contradicts Jesus's words to have God and the Holy Spirit living inside of us. This is where the catholic church's theory on apostolic succession becomes grossly distorted.

You jst contradicted yourself, ebia. You said the church considers the bible infallible and now you say it isn't the sole medium for the truth. What other sources of truth are there? Man's imagination? If so, then you are saying that man is perfect and infallible. Which is it?

Praying to dead men is INDEED worshipping men. Putting men on pedestals including saints and the pope, is INDEED worshiping men!

Where does the bible say they did have sex?

K.  Here's how it works.  You see the male drone bee comes to the female queen bee and... ;D

Do you always answer a question with a question?  ;)

Jesus had brothers and sisters.  Unless they also came from Virgin birth or adoption--and we're assuming they weren't adopted because they would have mentioned the adoption if it were not so.   ;D  But we don't know that for sure do we?

Isn't that how we play this game? ;)

 ;D  Since Jesus answered questions with questions, we can say that's "Biblical"!!   ;D

The bible doesn't say either way.  Other documents written around the same time all say she remained a virgin.  The great Christians of the 1st and 2nd centuries (some of whom had met her, many of whom had met John) all seem to believe she remained a virgin.


You shouldn't boast about your fasting, and the RCC doesn't teach that you should as far as I know.

He didn't say don't call the pope "Holy Father".  He said don't call anyone father or teacher.   No-one, you included, takes these words literally.


Untrue.


That's not a contradiction.  The book of Song of Solomon is infallible but not the sole medium of truth.


God.

Proof by repetion, eh?

Except that the word used can also mean more distant relatives such as cousins.

Hello Heidi-

You seem to think that Jesus forbid calling anyone 'father', so you are wondering why Catholics call priests 'father'?

This question deals with Jesus words in Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Jesus was speaking in hyperbole to get his point across strongly.

(Kind of like when He said we have to hate our fathers and mothers to be his followers.)

Jesus used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell"  (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47).

How many Christians do you know that have plucked out their eyes?

If Jesus really meant not to call anyone your father then why do we have examples all over the New Testament of people calling others their fathers and also people calling themselves fathers?  Some examples:

Romans 4:1-18, Romans 9:10, 1 Corinthians 4:15,1 Corinthians 10:1, Galatians 1:14, Ephesians 5:31 and 6:4, Philippians 2:22, Colossians 3:21, 1 Thessalonians 2:11, 1 Timothy 5:1, 2 Timothy 1:3, Hebrews 1:1, 3:9 and 12:9

Paul referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ"  (1 Cor. 4:17)

He also said: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter did this as well: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13).

There are many other examples from both the Old and the New Testament which lead us to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking in hyperbole.

You are welcome to come to my website and learn about Catholicism.  I also offer to teach you anything you want to know.  There are no secrets.

When I see a priest, I just say Hail Mary :)

Brother Love :)

    <:)))><

Did Mary die and then go to heaven?

Or did Mary, go to heaven alive?

Brother Love :)

     <:)))><

Did Mary, have any other children?

Brother Love :)

  <:)))><

Did Peter have a wife?

Brother Love :)

    <:)))><

Of course Peter had a wife.

I suppose you are now going to say something like "AHA!  The first Pope was married, so your priestly celibacy rules is wrong!"

Am I right?  I'll save you the time...priestly celibacy is simply a discipline, it is not a Dogma nor a Doctrine.  It has changed over time.  Big deal.  It is optional even now and Eastern Rite Catholics don't have to follow it either.

The Church hasn't stated one way or the other.

Do you want to address my Biblical arguments about calling people 'father' or just make jokes?

Mary did not have other children after giving birth to Jesus and there are a few things to consider in order to answer the question.

Cultural Context

There would be no need to explain the perpetual virginity of Mary to a first-century Jew that believed in Jesus the Christ. God Himself came from the Ark of the New Covenant (Mary) and to tread on holy ground was unthinkable to a Jew. Once you understand this cultural reference it is east to understand why Joseph would not violate the Ark. (Anyone touching the old ark in the Old Testament died, remember?) Also, it is prophecied in the Old Testament that the Lord would come through a ONE-WAY gate, so to speak, and that gate is Mary.

Language Barriers

Take a look at this verse of Scripture...

"For he must reign, until he has put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:23-25) Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign?

Of course not...so let's look at the often quoted verse used to assert that Mary and Joseph had relation after Jesus' birth...

"...no marital relations with her until she had borne a son..." does not imply that after she had borne a son that they had relations. It could be read that way, but given the culture context and the other evidence that we have from the early church writings, it is pretty clear that Mary remains a virgin. It is written this way simply to emphasize that Joseph respected holy ground.

Also, it is worth noting that in ancient Aramaic, the original language of the Gospels, there was no word for "cousin." People that were not siblings were often called "brothers" and we have examples of this throughout the Bible.

For more information: http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/02ws/ws021121.htm

James was older than Jesus

James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, is often cited as being one of Jesus' brothers, as in Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19. Hegesippus (c. 180 AD) and Eusebius (c. 300 AD) also mention James as "the Lord's brother", but Eusebius (who wrote a history of the Early Church based on primary sources no longer available to us), specifically identifies him as "the son of Joseph", and Hegesippus mentions that James was past the age of eighty when he was martyred in 62 AD. This would make James more than twenty years older than Jesus, and as Luke plainly tells us, Jesus was Mary's "first-born son". Ergo, if Hegesippus is correct, then James had to be a step-brother, unless Joseph was building time machines in his carpenter's shop.

If you want to know the answers to the above questions, friends, just ask the catholic church. Do not look in the bible for them because it contradicts the catholic church. The catholic church will stand by EVERYTHING it says because it is INFALLIBLE. Unlike every other church composed of human beings, the catholic church is NOT composed of fallible human beings. That is what is called SEVERE pride. The church is ANYTHING but humble. Humility is a fruit of the spirit. Pride is not. "By their fruits you will recognize them."

Christopher, i understand what those other metaphors you gave as examples of hyperbole mean. They are quite obvious. But you have not explained what Jesus meant by not calling anyone 'father', much less our "Holy Father". If it's a hyperbole, rather than a direct statement, then please clarify what He means by that. So far, no one has yet.  

ROFLOL :) :) :)
priestly celibacy is simply a discipline, it is not a Dogma nor a Doctrine.  It has changed over time.  Big deal. YES!!! It is a "BIG" Deal.

Brother Love :)

  <:)))><

On the contrary, the Catholic church is very well aware that it is made up of infallible people.  It's the church that is infallible, not the people who make it up.  By the grace of God the Church is far more than the sum of its parts.

And you haven't answered the question of what do you call your biological father and your school teacher if it is a direct statement.

im not saying im right but i go to a catholic church and teach thier , ive asked the priest and leaders of the church on their belief of jesus haveing brothers and they also have said that he did??? i believe he did. but you know it realy dont matter , just interesting conversation.

From www.philthompson.net


If Mary is still a virgin, who are the "Brothers of the Lord"?
When non-Protestants call Mary the "Virgin," they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. She is called aiparthenos in Greek: Ever-virgin.
When Protestants use the term "virgin" in reference to Mary, they usually mean she was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the Lord." What gives rise to the disagreement are biblical verses that refer to the brothers (and sisters) of the Lord. Until I began reading the historical records of what Christians wrote and believed in the earliest centuries, I never thought to question the modern Protestant assumption that these were physical siblings of Jesus. (I had no idea at the time that Luther, Calvin, and even Wesley taught the earlier belief that she was ever-virgin.)

To put the question in historical context, we should look at the testimony of the early Church. The first time this question is recorded to have been raised was in the controversy between the Bible translator Jerome and the Arian Helvidius, who proposed that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Christ's birth. Jerome, writing about 380, states that at first he declined to comment on Helvidius' remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." Eventually, though, Jerome's friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was not heard of again for over a thousand years. Significantly, when in recent times the Radical Reformation resurrected the issue, reformer John Calvin refuted it on the same basis.

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; 7:1, 5; 7:10; Acts 1:14). Let's examine a few of them: "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him" (Matt. 12:46). "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3). "For even his brothers did not believe in him" (John 7:5). "All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers" (Acts 1:14). "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, the first thing to note is that in the Semitic world of the Bible, in the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, as in Hebrew, the term "brother" has a very wide meaning. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The Old Testament shows that the term "brother" had a very wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, members of the family by marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or political allies (1 Samuel 9:13; 20:32; 2 Samuel 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham's "brother" (Genesis 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham's brother (Genesis 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham's nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Genesis 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chronicles 23:21-22).

The terms "brother" and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant kinsman (Deuteronomy 23:7, Nehemiah 5:7, Jeremiah 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kings 10:13-14).

No Word for Cousin
Why this ambiguous usage? Because where we would say "cousin", speakers of Hebrew and Aramaic used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But in everyday use Semitic people simply said "brother."
The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father -- plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Translated by Jewish scholars a century or two before Christ's birth, it was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.) In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.

The Jewish translators imported this Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine just what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that unavoidable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve (Luke 2:41-51) the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family. Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him not only as "one of Joseph's sons" but as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3). In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons - not even when they are called "brethren of the Lord."

There is another point, perhaps a little harder for moderns, or at least Westerners, to grasp. It is that the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient - and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons give advice to younger, not younger to the older; it is disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus' brethren counselling him that Galilee was no place for him, and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3-4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself'" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary's "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the Cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John. "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:26-27). Now the Gospels mention four of his "brethren," James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

Modern arguments
Many modern Protestants insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the literal sense of the Greek. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "He did not know her until (Greek: eos) she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had other children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn't that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born" and "fourth-born," and so on? The problem is that they are using a narrow, modern meaning of the English word "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some strange meanings result.
Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Samuel 6:23). Did she have children after her death? Or the raven that Noah released from the ark - the bird "went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth" (Genesis 8:7). In fact, as the story progresses, we see that the raven never returned at all.

Continued


There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deuteronomy 34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either. "And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace" (1 Maccabees 5:54 ). The soldiers were not slain on their return from battle, either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea - which is that nothing at all can be assumed from the use of the word "until" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "he had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

Some claim Jesus could not be Mary's "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this does not take into account the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Exodus 13:2, Numbers 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Exodus 34:20). Did the parents wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? In fact, the firstborn was dedicated to the Lord even if no other children were ever born. "The first offspring of every womb, both man and animal, that is offered to the LORD is yours. But you must redeem every firstborn son and every firstborn male of unclean animals." (Numbers 18:15) The first son was the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt - the inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her "first-born."

Joseph and Mary
It has been argued that it would have been unnatural - even repugnant - for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage but remain celibate. Certainly the arrangement was unusual - but not as unusual as having the incarnate God in one's family, and not nearly as unusual as a virgin's giving birth to a child! But another look at the New Testament texts reveals that Joseph was Mary's betrothed. They were engaged, not married (Luke 2:5).
Betrothal was (and still is in some Eastern cultures) as serious as marriage; it invokes the responsibilities of marriage with none of the prerogatives; and to break a betrothal required that the agreement between the families be broken. This is why Joseph, on discovering his fiancée was pregnant, was minded to put her away quietly rather than embarrassing himself, his family, and hers. Only the visit of the angel convinced him to bear the disgrace of people knowing that his fiancée had become pregnant.

Why wouldn't Joseph and Mary had relations after the birth of Christ? Here's one thought: In Scripture, whatever merely touched the altar of God was holy. (Exodus 29:37), as the altar sanctifies the gift (Matthew 23:19). The ground where God revealed Himself was too holy to be touched disrespectfully by sandals (Exodus 3:5). The ark where God was revealed was made fearful and holy by His dwelling there - Uzzah merely touched it and died instantly! Compare that with the body of Mary, in which the God Who cannot be contained, contained Himself bodily. Her body didn't merely touch the altar or the ark; in a very real sense, her body was the ark for nine months, physically containing the shechinah, the manifest presence of God. Like the burning bush, she was exposed to the Consuming Fire, but was preserved from being consumed.

She didn't just touch God; she contained Him, gave birth to Him, and nursed Him! Knowing all that, it seems rash - and incredibly intimidating - to anticipate immediately becoming physically intimate with the body that has just served the Almighty as His temple! I have a hard time imagining that Joseph would be at all enthusiastic about the act of making Mary pregnant with his own sons; you don't have sex with the Ark of the Covenant.

What everybody used to know

If the "brethren of the Lord" were not Jesus' brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, one belief was that they were sons of Joseph but not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One ancient apocryphal work, the second-century Protevangelion of James, records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl" (4:8-9).

The best-documented ancient teaching is that they were Jesus' cousins. Mark's Gospel calls Jesus "the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3). Matthew names the women standing beneath the Cross, "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph; and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matthew 27:56); "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" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that Matthew's "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" is John's "Mary the wife of Clopas". Incidentally, an eyebrow might be raised at John's statement above - did Mary actually have a "sister" also named Mary? Or is it more reasonable to assume that "sister" is used here exactly as "brother" is used in the Bible, to refer to a close relationship, such as sisters-in-law?

Indirect support for this view comes from Matthew 10:3, where Matthew refers to James as the son of Alphaeus. The Aramaic name Halfi could as easily be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas, or further Hellenized to Cleophas.

Late in the first century, Papias (a hearer of St. John, and a friend of Polycarp) wrote concerning the Marys in the Gospels: "(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene: These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord's. Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John gives the name 'Mary of Cleophas', either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands."

The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph the foster-father of Jesus. Cleophas' son James was Joseph's nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's stepson.

The historian Eusebius tells us of James, the "brother" of the Lord, who led the Jerusalem Church until his martyrdom, at which time James' brother Simeon, as the Lord's closest relative, took over the role of bishop. He also states that James and Simeon were cousins of Jesus.

Tradition

Oddly enough, the notion that Mary had other sons wasn't originally part of the Protestant Reformers' agenda. On the contrary, when the idea was breached to John Calvin, he responded in a sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, "There have been certain folk who wished to suggest from this passage, that the virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience."  Martin Luther and John Wesley, too, defended the belief in Mary's virginity. So there is nothing inherent in Protestantism that requires reading into Scripture a belief in other sons of Mary. It's a purely modern tradition.

Is it vital that we diagram Joseph and Mary's family tree? Of course not. What surprises me, though, is the vehemence with which some Protestants argue that Mary had other children. Perhaps it's a manifestation of Romophobia - whatever the Roman Catholics believe, the opposite must automatically be true. Or perhaps it could be that some today are offended by the idea of celibacy, seeing it as a denial of the value of Christian marriage. Yet Paul and even Jesus Himself agreed that it is better not to marry - even though a celibate life is certainly not for everyone (Matthew 19:10-12; 1 Corinthians 7:8).

In my own journey to Orthodoxy, the virginity of Mary was not an issue. I had no good reason to oppose this belief: I lose nothing by agreeing with the historical belief of Christians from all ages; and I have no case for believing anything else (except the tradition of my former denomination); and now surprisingly enough I find myself in agreement on this question with Calvin, Luther, and Wesley.
 
 

Matthew, 12:46-49. "While Jesus was talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, 'Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.' He replied to him; "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."  Now THAT IS SCRIPTURAL. Not only is it clear that Jesus had brothers, but Jesus thought much less of his mother than the catholic church does! Again, the catholics are not only ignoring scripture but making it up as well! And they LOVE to see themselves as infallible. Pride at its worst.

read the article I posted and you'll see what those verses really say in Greek.

And what do they say in Aramaic? Why do you think those verses were even put in the bible? What do you think the point of them was? Do you even know? Whoever wrote those words was making the point that a real brother is a brother in Christ. How would the people who translated those words even know that? Where did they get that? Just a guess? The point is that there is absolutely NO scripture that says Jesus had no brothers and Mary didn't have sex with Joseph. ABSOLUTELY NONE. Yet the catholic church is deciding they know better than the authors of the bible just like atheists do when they say that Jesus never existed. The doctrine of the catholic church is not scriptural, but man-made. You choose to worship the infallibility of men rather than Christ Himself. that is your choice. But yo'll find out when you die just how wrong you are.

OK, I didn't want to have to do this but, You know James the Brother of Jesus.  Here's what he has to say about her virginity.

This is an excerpt from the Liturgy written by him.  It is the Earliest known liturgy of the Early Church

"Only-begotten Son and Word of God, who, being immortal, accepted for our salvation to take flesh from the holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, and without change became man; you were crucified, Christ God, by death trampling on death, being one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit: save us!"

If that's taken from the liturgy of the church I can see why it contradicts the bible. There's a reason it wasn't canonized.

It's taken from something written by James, the brother of Jesus.

You wanna tell me where it's wrong?

You sound like the Jews who say that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because the Jews scripture says that the Messiah is born form a woman who is Ever-Virgin.

According to the Catholic church, Mary ascended into Heaven.

Was Mary a sinner?

You do NOT see the contradiction in your post, Nickolai. How can the BROTHER of Jesus say this his mother was a virgin? It's absolutely impossible! If Mary was a virgin all her life, then how was James born? That's why that statement is completely bogus and was not canonized. For some reason, you have a hard time seeing through false teaching.

 8)  If the whole point of knowing that Christ died for Our sins, is so that we can know that in Him we are complete and this Truth is supposed to set us free, then all this extra stuff is just fluff.

I'm not saying that The Catholic church is responsible for all the fluff that keeps us from focusing on the fact that we complete in Him, but in this thread, the whole point is that the Catholic Church makes it hard for everyone to grasp "Hey, we're complete.  All we need is God to love us.  God is the only one that can take away the meanness and the bitterness and the strife."

Think about it.  If in Him we are complete, then what do we have to have all the striving for?  There's no need for competition, and honor, and glory, and power.  We don't need any of that.  If we don't have to chase after these things of the world, we not only live in peace but we are free to serve God.

If in Him we are complete, we don't have to keep up with our neighbor.  We don't have to covet our neighbors stuff, his car, his job, his money, his wife, his values, anything that our neighbor shows off to us to try to make us feel like we're incomplete, we don't have to accept that.  

If in Him we are complete, we don't have to wake up and worry.  We don't have to be tied down to the things of this world that enslave us.  We don't NEED people to pat us on the head and pat us on the back and say, "good going." Or "wow, you're great" or "look how handsome you are"  we don't need that.  

If in Him we are complete and we know it and feel it in our our hearts, then we can examine the things of this world and see that they have no value.  And they really don't have value.

If in Him we are complete and we know it, then of course we need food and clothing and shelter, but we wouldn't hord it.  If we have anything that anyone, our neighbor, the homeless, some stranger we would share it.  We wouldn't have to have the things of this world.  We wouldn't have to have a bank account and a huge savings.  We could look around and see and say, "wow, did you notice those people over there living in poverty, and I have all this extra.  I better share."

If in Him we are complete and we know it in our heart and feel it, then giving up AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL that we have to follow the Lord would make all the sense in the world.

If all of a sudden, everyone in the whole world that calls themselves Christians suddenly realized this, there would be no more hunger.  And if we lived our lives the way we're supposed to, there could be no more war.  Why would people need to fight each other if they all agreed that in God we are complete.

But no, we can't focus on whether or not we are complete in Him, because in order to figure it out we've got to read massive amounts of volumes and all those volumes combined aren't trying to make people understand that in God they are complete.

In God you are complete.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  If you can't do that, then first, have no other God's before God.  Second, don't take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.  Third, don't make unto thee any graven images. Fourth, remember the Sabboth day to keep it holy.  Fifth, honor thy father and they mother.  Six, do not kill.  Seventh, do not commit adultry.  Eighth do not steal.  Nine do not bear false witness Ten don't covet your neighbors stuff.  

Clearly, these are things that just about anyone in the world would agree, they wouldn't want people to do these things to them.  Everyone wants their kids to honor them.  Nobody wants to be murdered.  Nobody wants someone to sleep with their mate who they love and adore.  Nobody wants someone to steal from them.  Nobody wants people to tell them lies that hurts them in anyway.  Nobody wants to sit around feeling incomplete because they don't have what their neighbor has.  

In order to get the last five right, the first five have to be in place so folks don't start making up a whole bunch of rules that detract us from the way to be loved and show people loved listed in the ten commandments.  

And the big deal is that SOMEONE HAS distracted us from these simple things that if we all focused on them with our whole hearts, the whole world would be at peace.  

Since we are so busy striving because we don't focus on those last five that would create world peace, then we have to admit AHA!!!  We have other Gods!!  

It would seem like we'd do much better if we got rid of the whole Bible except those words about the commandments and the laws.  But we can't do that because we NEED to know WHO our Lord is.  We need a relationship with Him in order to feel and know that we are complete.  Hence, we need all the histories of the ancient isrealites and see their relationship to the Lord.  We don't look at those men in the Bible to find out how to be because they were all imperfect.  We look at those men in the Bible that were inperfect so we can see that our Lord continued to stay with them for the most part despite their imperfections.  


But just let The Popes keep piling it on and putting it on and adding it on billions of volumes and pretty soon no one will know Who in the universe their God is or that we can communicate with Him ourselves.  We'll completely distract ourselve from how to love our neighbor by and be in relationship with our God by living our rules and saying vain repitions.  Then, without the relationship with our God, we find ourselves feeling incomplete because we don't have the stuff our neighbor has.  Since we feel so incomplete, then we might we tempted to start lieing about who we ourselves are and who our neighbor is, so that we can draw a picture of what we want people to see so that wont see that truth that we are incomplete.  Then we'll just start thinking of coniving ways to con stuff out of our neighbors --- marketing--- to make them feel even more incomplete. all that's bearing false witness against a neighbor.  But it gets worse.  When we can't con them out of their stuff, then we might be tempted to just steal it.  And then, have sex with their significant other, or anyone that will have us because we need to feel complete, we'll sleep with anything.  And then that gets everyone's tempers flaired up and they start killing each other.  And the striving gets so bad that pretty soon people forget all about taking care of their parents.  WWWWWWWHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYY  

BECAUSE OTHER GODS LEAVE US INCOMPLETE--if we feel incomplete then we start thinking we need the things of this world and we aren't very neighborly in our efforts to get them.  These days we learn in college how to get our neighbor to feel incomplete.  We learn in college how to get our neighbor to work for us so we can benefit off the labor of our neighbor.  And nobody thinks its wrong.  Apparently, we've all be going after other Gods.  One of them is the Pope.  The other is The Almighty dollar.  The sad thing is that folks that come in pushing the name of the Pope are really after The Almighty Dollar!!!

He was a son of Joseph's But since the word in greek used at the time (Adelphos) means all close relatives he can still be called brother without litlerally being a full blood brother

Then you completely missed the point of the passage I quoted. The whole reason it was in there is that the disciples were referring to the blood brothers and mother of Jesus to which Jesus alluded that blood brothers do not count. Only Christian brothers. If the disciples already knew that then Jesus wouldn't have needed to make that distinction! The disciples had no previous clue that everyone was Jesus's brother or they would have simply called Jesus's brother and mother by name. But they specifically called them His brothers and mother.They only saw blood relatives as true brothers which proves that Jesus had blood relatives. There is NO evidence, ZERO, that Joseph had children from a previous marriage or by adlutery. Again, the church is making up stories that are not scriptural which is what David Koresh and all cult leaders do. You are trying to fit the gospel into church doctrine instead of fitting church doctrine into the gospel. That only proves that you worship the church more than Christ.

amen to that all of that is just a way to make money and takes attention from god  to things that dont matter

i dont think it was right for them to kick you out if they were certain in there  religion and belief in that they wouldnt be offended by your call  on blashphame

ebia you said :Just in case youv'e forgotten, I'm not Catholic and I don't "adhere to their doctrine."
 

if that is true then why defend the RCC and its pope

And the point still stands just as well whether they are full brothers in the modern sense, half brothers, or cousins.   You are applying a very modern "nuclear family" mindset to scriptures written in a completely different context and understanding of family.

Read my sig-line for your answer.

whats  a sig-line  ???  and why cant you give a straight answer

The signature line is the line(s) at the bottom of each of a person's posts.

It is a straight answer.

How many wives did Joseph have?

According to tradition, he was a widower when he married Mary.  So Two.

And that tradition is backed up by which Scriptures?
Wouldn't he have had to take his whole family into Bethlehem?

Joseph being an older man is consistant with the fact that he drops out of the picture after Luke Ch 2.

Other than that, scripture doesn't tell us very much about Joseph.  Other non-canonical writings and oral tradition fill in some of the gaps.

Apparently not.

Except that in Scripture words have been very carefully selected and placed there by the Holy Spirit. "And behold thy COUSIN Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age... And her neighbours and her COUSINS heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her" (Lk, 1:36;58). That Greek word suggenes is used only twice in the NT, and means a blood relative, or kinsman.

However, when we come to Matthew 12:46,47 we read of Christ's mother and BRETHREN. That Greek word is adelphos which combines a + delphus [womb] meaning FROM THE SAME WOMB, and literally brothers [unless used figuratively according to the context].

So your explanation [which is the automatic Catholic response to Christ's half-brothers] has no foundation in Scripture, and was invented later to create the dogma about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

1.  There is a context - the early church, and the catholic and orthodox churches still - knew that Christ had no brothers through Mary.
2.  Any protestant apologest worth his salt knows that you can't assume words are used identically by different biblical authors - indeed, you need to assume they use words differently to resolve some of the apparent contradictions in the gospel accounts.

Most people saw it when they were children, then again with their children, and some even again with grandchildren and then again with great grandchildren. One has many opportunities to see the Disney flicks over and over ad infinitum. That is if one has procreated and the kids are conscious.

Ollie