Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Valletta]

James is called "the Lord's brother". The Greek word is "adelphos", which I understand means either "a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother" or "having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman" or some other meaning that like, "having the same national ancestor" would make no sense in singling James out.

I wonder when, according to you, the Roman Catholic Church was founded. If the Roman Catholic Church had been in existence before any of the New Testament was written, hoiw surprising that not one word of that Testament makes any reference to such a church claiming authority over all Christians. There is mention of a local church in Rome, and Paul wrote a letter to its members, but there is nothing to mark that local church out as being over other local churches.

While Jesus did speak of His Church in the New Testament, neither Jesus nor even one Apostle mentioned gathering books and compiling those books into the New Testament. Some of the NT was addressed to very specific audiences, and I think the authors and the Apostles themselves would have been astonished at the very idea. Had they a clue I think all of the Apostles would have tried to write something down. Yet so many religions are sola scriptura.

 

[Valletta]

Neither is it stated that she did not have children. I only said that a natural reading of the text would lead one to conclude she had other children.

An educated reading, a reading understanding the original language of the Bible, shows that the Biblical passage you question did not specifically state one way or another. Only a "biased" or "presumptive" reading, you use the word "natural," would cause one to conclude one way or another based on such a passage.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

An educated reading, a reading understanding the original language of the Bible, shows that the Biblical passage you question did not specifically state one way or another. Only a "biased" or "presumptive" reading, you use the word "natural," would cause one to conclude one way or another based on such a passage.

Yet you assume Mary had no other children which cannot be supported from Scripture. I suspect she did but don't claim I can make an airtight case.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

An educated reading, a reading understanding the original language of the Bible, shows that the Biblical passage you question did not specifically state one way or another. Only a "biased" or "presumptive" reading, you use the word "natural," would cause one to conclude one way or another based on such a passage.

What does it matter if she did?

 

[Valletta]

Aldephos is used in the NT to describe other relationships. While Jesus did speak of His Church in the New Testament, neither Jesus nor even one Apostle mentioned gathering books and compiling those books into the New Testament. Some of the NT was addressed to very specific audiences, and I think the authors and the Apostles themselves would have been astonished at the very idea. Had they a clue I think all of the Apostles would have tried to write something down. Yet so many religions are sola scriptura.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Because all else is uncertain and the words of men who cam be corrupt or mistaken. I will only trust the words of the Apostles written down. They would not contradict themselves so all other oral tradition must be tested by the written Word. The Apostles were not Roman Catholics. They were the first Christians and spoke and wrote as Christians, not as Catholics. There was yet no Catholic church. Just the church universal.

 

[Valletta]

Because all else is uncertain and the words of men who cam be corrupt or mistaken. I will only trust the words of the Apostles written down. They would not contradict themselves so all other oral tradition must be tested by the written Word. The Apostles were not Roman Catholics. They were the first Christians and spoke and wrote as Christians, not as Catholics. There was yet no Catholic church. Just the church universal.

As I've pointed out, many of your teachings are extra-Biblical teachings--found nowhere in the Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

While Jesus did speak of His Church in the New Testament, neither Jesus nor even one Apostle mentioned gathering books and compiling those books into the New Testament. Some of the NT was addressed to very specific audiences, and I think the authors and the Apostles themselves would have been astonished at the very idea. Had they a clue I think all of the Apostles would have tried to write something down. Yet so many religions are sola scriptura.

Keep in mind that the authors of the NT were divinely inspired to write. We therefore trust that all that God wanted us to know was written down or He would have inspired them to write more. It's not that they captured every word ever spoken by Jesus but that all the essential teachings were written down. I don't believe God inspired them to write certain essential things but then left other essential things out. Peter described Scripture as being useful for all things. The fact that they were inspired to write indicates God had a plan and a purpose for those writings and while me might not see a command for them to write and collect it would be a natural outcome of writing inspired texts.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I've pointed out, many of your teachings are extra-Biblical teachings--found nowhere in the Bible.

Please list some. I have stated my opinion that Mary had other children but agreed that it cannot be 100% proven. I have argued that "all" means "all" and "none" means "none." You have yet to answer my question of what would it matter if Mary did have other children?

 

[Valletta]

Keep in mind that the authors of the NT were divinely inspired to write. We therefore trust that all that God wanted us to know was written down or He would have inspired them to write more. It's not that they captured every word ever spoken by Jesus but that all the essential teachings were written down. I don't believe God inspired them to write certain essential things but then left other essential things out. Peter described Scripture as being useful for all things. The fact that they were inspired to write indicates God had a plan and a purpose for those writings and while me might not see a command for them to write and collect it would be a natural outcome of writing inspired texts.

Obviously it was important to the Catholic Church to have only God-breathed writings for readings at mass. Remember that:

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."134 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Realize that each and every potential Biblical text considered by the Catholic Church, and there were many, was tested against the teachings of the Catholic Church, passed down through the Apostles, before it was accepted. Anything that did not comply 100% with Catholic teaching was rejected.

 

[Valletta]

Because all else is uncertain and the words of men who cam be corrupt or mistaken. I will only trust the words of the Apostles written down. They would not contradict themselves so all other oral tradition must be tested by the written Word. The Apostles were not Roman Catholics. They were the first Christians and spoke and wrote as Christians, not as Catholics. There was yet no Catholic church. Just the church universal.

The Apostles were the first bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[Valletta]

What does it matter if she did?

As I said before, God could have chosen to make the Ark of the Covenant out of rotten would, or chosen the worst sinner on earth to be the mother to Jesus. God did not, and we should all accept God's actual plan for salvation. God's truth is of utmost importance.

 

[David Lamb]

The Apostles were the first bishops of the Catholic Church.

There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the apostles. The church in Roman was a local church, just like the church at Ephesus or the church at Corinth.

 

[Valletta]

There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the apostles. The church in Roman was a local church, just like the church at Ephesus or the church at Corinth.

Indeed, there was the Catholic Church, persecuted by the Roman Empire. Jesus built His Church upon Rock (Peter).

List of popes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[David Lamb]

Indeed, there was the Catholic Church, persecuted by the Roman Empire. Jesus built His Church upon Rock (Peter).

List of popes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, we are never going to agree on these matters. I say there is nothing in the bible to suggest the church at Rome held superiority over all churches, nor that Peter ever went to Rome, let alone became a pope, in the sense of ruling over all the Christians.

 

[Valletta]

Well, we are never going to agree on these matters. I say there is nothing in the bible to suggest the church at Rome held superiority over all churches, nor that Peter ever went to Rome, let alone became a pope, in the sense of ruling over all the Christians.

It's a position, not the highest position in the Catholic Church. The pope is not a king.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Obviously it was important to the Catholic Church to have only God-breathed writings for readings at mass. Remember that:

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."134 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Realize that each and every potential Biblical text considered by the Catholic Church, and there were many, was tested against the teachings of the Catholic Church, passed down through the Apostles, before it was accepted. Anything that did not comply 100% with Catholic teaching was rejected.

Disagree. What is truly sad about Roman Catholicism is that it's all about the church. It's like there is one mediator between God and man and it's the RCC and not Jesus or it's Jesus but via the RCC. One does not need the RCC to be saved. One does not need to believe one thing the RCC teaches about Mary (other than the virgin birth) to be saved. One never needs to attend a mass, be baptized, have first communion, be confirmed, etc, to be saved. There is salvation apart from the RCC church. Hebrews 2 says to fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith. Not on the RCC church. The Apostles were not Catholics. The RCC began centuries later despite what it claims. I don't want to hear about the RCC church, Mary, or saints. Just Jesus and the Scriptures. The rest is the invention of man and if I had an audience with the Pope, I would share the Gospel with him. Salvation is through faith in Christ alone; not in a church.

 

[Valletta]

Disagree. What is truly sad about Roman Catholicism is that it's all about the church. It's like there is one mediator between God and man and it's the RCC and not Jesus or it's Jesus but via the RCC. One does not need the RCC to be saved. One does not need to believe one thing the RCC teaches about Mary (other than the virgin birth) to be saved. One never needs to attend a mass, be baptized, have first communion, be confirmed, etc, to be saved. There is salvation apart from the RCC church. Hebrews 2 says to fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith. Not on the RCC church. The Apostles were not Catholics. The RCC began centuries later despite what it claims. I don't want to hear about the RCC church, Mary, or saints. Just Jesus and the Scriptures. The rest is the invention of man and if I had an audience with the Pope, I would share the Gospel with him. Salvation is through faith in Christ alone; not in a church.

You can't get any closer to Jesus than receiving Him in the Holy Eucharist. And you need Jesus to be saved. I understand it is difficult, a "hard saying" to believe that Jesus would humble Himself in such a manner. The first high priest mentioned in the Bible offered mere bread and wine, Jesus offers His true Body and Blood. That God works through His Church, works through flawed men, is perhaps not the way you or I would have chosen, but realize that God's ways are far above our ways. I understand you believe some group of men not recorded by history were the ones who really hashed out the differences in what should go into the Bible. Yet you accuse Catholics of inventing history. For someone who "doesn't want to hear" about the Catholic Church you spend an incredible amount of time accusing the Catholic Church of all kinds of things, from claiming the discipline of priests being celibate is not following the Bible to claiming the early Church didn't believe in the true Body and Blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Focus on what we have in common. Catholics, like other Christians, strive for a close personal relationship with Jesus.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You can't get any closer to Jesus than receiving Him in the Holy Eucharist. And you need Jesus to be saved. I understand it is difficult, a "hard saying" to believe that Jesus would humble Himself in such a manner. The first high priest mentioned in the Bible offered mere bread and wine, Jesus offers His true Body and Blood. That God works through His Church, works through flawed men, is perhaps not the way you or I would have chosen, but realize that God's ways are far above our ways. I understand you believe some group of men not recorded by history were the ones who really hashed out the differences in what should go into the Bible. Yet you accuse Catholics of inventing history. For someone who "doesn't want to hear" about the Catholic Church you spend an incredible amount of time accusing the Catholic Church of all kinds of things, from claiming the discipline of priests being celibate is not following the Bible to claiming the early Church didn't believe in the true Body and Blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Focus on what we have in common. Catholics, like other Christians, strive for a close personal relationship with Jesus.

Yes, you need Jesus but you don't receive him in the eucharist. It is a memorial and you are closest to him in faith. His words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were figurative. Nowhere does the NT teach that we can turn break and wine into Christ's literal body and blood. We have no clear description of the early church doing that. Paul never wrote about it. That they "broke bread" does not mean they believed in transubstantiation.

History does name some of the men who helped form the canon of Scripture though most are unnamed. These men met as Christian men before there was a true RCC. The fact that centuries later the RCC claimed a line of successors back to Peter does not make it so. Were there bishops of Rome? Sure. Was Peter in Rome and its first bishop? There is no evidence he was. Only tradition. We know Paul was in Rome but he never mentioned Peter being there and Peter is believed to have died not many years after Paul. Jesus left no instructions about Peter having a successor even if you believe he was the head of the church. Paul and the other NT writers never mention Peter as being the head, a major oversight if in fact he was.

Where does the Bible define the office of the priest? Where does it specify such men should be celibate? I only read of elders and deacons both of whom may be married so where did celibate priests come from? How about celibate nuns for that matter? These are not offices or positions described in the Bible.

I believe RC practices grew out of manmade traditions over a period of centuries. Calling early church gatherings "masses" does not make them so, at least not in the RC sense. We read of such meetings in the Book of Acts but we don't read of a priest presiding or of a specified liturgy.

Yes, we strive for a close personal relationship with Jesus but when I talk to a Catholic I mostly hear about the church. I often hear more about Mary, the mass, confession, and the various sacraments than I hear about Jesus. Most of the praying I hear about are rosaries and other prayers that have been so memorized as to be mind-numbing. The RCC is so stuck on tradition that it won't even allow their priests to give their own prayers. Everything must be read from a prayer book that has been officially sanctioned. Why send their priests to seminary if they are going to end up reading nearly every word of the mass from books? Do they not trust these men to express the same ideas in their own words? It is the teachings of Scripture that are sacred not the specific wording. I grew up Catholic and in nearly 22 years as a Catholic, I learned very little outside of the practices of the RCC. It wasn't until I began reading and studying the Bible for myself that I really began to learn. The 10 minute homilies at each mass barely scratched the surface of the passages read and all too often those were replaced with some recorded message from the bishop. RC makes so much of the eucharist that it neglects teaching the Word. Most of the mass is devoted to the eucharist and liturgy that very little of the Word is taught. That might have made sense back when Bibles were not common as a way to introduce Scripture, but Bibles have been common for centuries now and still the RCC sticks to an ancient liturgy and did not even start using the common tongues of the masses until 1960. I actually attended a few masses said in Latin with the priest's back to the church. It was a performance or spectacle as you couldn't understand a word the priest was saying. I saw zero value in that.

If I am critical it is because I realize now how much I missed out on for all those years. Years I could have been really learning the Word of God but instead heard the same prewritten words over and over and over again. I was more a disciple of the church than of Jesus. Then, in the 9th grade, I prayed to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior and read the entire Bible 4 times straight. That is when my life changed. Not from all the rituals I had gone through as a Catholic. In my 20s I was baptized in a lake and that for me was my real baptism.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I said before, God could have chosen to make the Ark of the Covenant out of rotten would, or chosen the worst sinner on earth to be the mother to Jesus. God did not, and we should all accept God's actual plan for salvation. God's truth is of utmost importance.

That doesn't answer my question. What would it have mattered if Mary had other children?

At best you can argue that the reference to brothers and sisters could be references to cousins or other relatives but it does not prove it. Therefore, it is possible (according to Scripture) that Mary did have other children. So again, my question, what would it matter if she did have other children? What would that change for you?