Queen of heaven

Major1 said:

The FACT however is that the WORD INFANT is not seen!

What you are doinf is reading INTO the Scriptures what you want them to say!

Click to expand...

While we are not of the sola scriptura religion, the Bible clearly says household. Infants, men, women and teenagers are part of a household. The Bible does not say "whole households except for infants." You are reading into Scriptures what you want the Scriptures to say!!!

Major1 said:

The FACT however is that the WORD INFANT is not seen!

Click to expand...

Neither are Jesus's brethren called children of Mary.

What you are doinf is reading INTO the Scriptures what you want them to say!

Click to expand...

You hold to a double standard.

Major1 said:

WHat I say is meaningless! You should know that by now!

Click to expand...

QFT!

prodromos said:

QFT!

Click to expand...

I am not sure that "meaningless" is the right word.

I am positive that you mean everything you say. Now whether or not what you say is helpful is another thing.

prodromos said:

Neither are Jesus's brethren called children of Mary.

You hold to a double standard.

Click to expand...

NOPE. I just believe what the Bible says. No more and no less.

You have said that you are not Catholic but you sure do jump at every opportunity to defend Catholic tradition.

The facts are that in the Catholic tradition, these "children" have always been regarded as the cousins of Jesus so as to perpatrate the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In other words, they're not the children of Mary, so Catholic apologists will often point to a few key texts in the Bible to support the conclusion that the so-called brothers of Jesus are not actually children of Mary which is what you are doing.

If Mary was perpetually a virgin, then Jesus would have no blood relatives. If Mary remained a virgin until Jesus was born, but then had relations with her husband Joseph, that opens the possibility for Jesus having half-siblings. They would be half-siblings since Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father due to the virgin birth.

While it is true that the Greek words for “brothers” and “sisters” can be ambiguous, there was a word for “cousin” in the New Testament. For example, Colossians 4:10 says, “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you greetings, as does Mark, Barnabas’ cousin (concerning whom you have received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him)” (CSB). It is striking that nowhere in the New Testament, or the first two centuries of Christianity, are they referred to as Jesus’ cousins.

But since you are not a Catholic you can dismiss these facts and believe anything you want to.

prodromos said:

Neither are Jesus's brethren called children of Mary.

You hold to a double standard.

Click to expand...

You said.........
"Neither are Jesus's brethren called children of Mary."

Matthew 13:55-56 sems to say some different.........
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?

I can only assume that English is really hard to grasp!!!!

"Carpenter's SON.......IS NOT HIS MOTEHR CALL MARY?"

Valletta said:

While we are not of the sola scriptura religion, the Bible clearly says household. Infants, men, women and teenagers are part of a household. The Bible does not say "whole households except for infants." You are reading into Scriptures what you want the Scriptures to say!!!

Click to expand...

No it does not !!!

The word INFANT does not appear!

Your thesis is exactly the opposite. Because the word INFANT is NOT IN THE Bible, you are reading into the Bible the word "Infant".

And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household (Acts 16:33).

Notice, the whole household was baptized. So YOU want to believe in infant baptism so you reason...........

The household was baptized.

The household included infants.

Therefore, infants were baptized.

The problem with that argument is the second premise. It is pure speculation. The Biblical texts do not say there were infants in the household. As Ben Witherington comments,

“It is improbable that one can extract a theology of ‘household’ baptisms from a text like Acts 10, if by household one means including infants and very small children…it is an argument from silence, since infants and small children are not specifically mentioned…”
Source: ( Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 155, n. 94).

Major1 said:

You have said that you are not Catholic but you sure do jump at every opportunity to defend Catholic tradition.

Click to expand...

I am not defending Catholic tradition except where it aligns with Orthodox tradition.

The facts are that in the Catholic tradition, these "children" have always been regarded as the cousins of Jesus so as to perpatrate the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In other words, they're not the children of Mary, so Catholic apologists will often point to a few key texts in the Bible to support the conclusion that the so-called brothers of Jesus are not actually children of Mary which is what you are doing.

Click to expand...

I've never claimed they are cousins. I've always stated they are older brothers because that is how Scripture describes their attitude towards Jesus.

If Mary was perpetually a virgin, then Jesus would have no blood relatives. If Mary remained a virgin until Jesus was born, but then had relations with her husband Joseph, that opens the possibility for Jesus having half-siblings. They would be half-siblings since Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father due to the virgin birth.

Click to expand...

Joseph is legally the father of Jesus, thus any children Joseph had would be brothers and sisters to Jesus. There is no concept of "half-brothers" in Hebrew culture.
If Jesus was the eldest as you claim, then He would have strong influence over his brothers, both in terms of being the eldest but primarily because they would have grown up with the perfect eldest brother in terms of the example He set and His loving relationship with them. In the absence of Joseph, He would be the head of the household and they would have been well acquainted with the same level of wisdom and discernment that the Pharisees experienced in their encounters with Him. The Scriptures instead present a contrary image of their relationship. They attempt to control Him and guide Him, exactly the way older brothers would treat a younger, celebrity brother.
I find that compelling evidence that Jesus was the only Son of Mary, but no doubt you will reject that and come up with some reason to explain all that away.

Major1 said:

No it does not !!!

The word INFANT does not appear!

Your thesis is exactly the opposite. Because the word INFANT is NOT IN THE Bible, you are reading into the Bible the word "Infant".

And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household (Acts 16:33).

Notice, the whole household was baptized. So YOU want to believe in infant baptism so you reason...........

The household was baptized.

The household included infants.

Therefore, infants were baptized.

The problem with that argument is the second premise. It is pure speculation. The Biblical texts do not say there were infants in the household. As Ben Witherington comments,

“It is improbable that one can extract a theology of ‘household’ baptisms from a text like Acts 10, if by household one means including infants and very small children…it is an argument from silence, since infants and small children are not specifically mentioned…”
Source: ( Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 155, n. 94).

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, household is household. The same with the word family. Both include adults, children, and infants. Now if it said family except for infants or household except for infants, or except for teenagers, or except for women, or except for men, that would mean some were not baptized. Likewise there is no debate in Catholic Councils about supposedly changing the practice of Baptism to include a new group. Is it part of your religion's tradition to choose an age for Baptism? If so, did you select the age from the Bible or is is manmade?

Major1 said:

I can only assume that English is really hard to grasp!!!!

"Carpenter's SON.......IS NOT HIS MOTEHR CALL MARY?"

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is for you, given your spelling and grammar, but it is hardly an issue for me as I read the Scriptures in Greek and not just in English translation.

Major1 said:

The FACT however is that the WORD INFANT is not seen!

What you are doinf is reading INTO the Scriptures what you want them to say!

Click to expand...

The FACT is that an entire household was baptized based on the singular faith of the head of the household. How does that fit within your frame of reference?

Major1 said:

Once I began reading the Bible, many of those questions were answered. If Rome says one thing, and God in the Bible says the opposite, whom do you believe—God or Rome?

The Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are contrary to the Bible, and were unknown to the early church. This is the reason I am exposing major differences between Catholicism and Christianity. Indeed, who are we going to believe: the Pope of Rome, or the God of the Bible?

Click to expand...

The question is not whether I believe God, the question is whether I believe your interpretation of Scripture, which by the very definition of sola-Scriptura cannot be guaranteed to be without error. So why would I accept that as “truth?”

What would be your definition of the "early" Church?

Major1 said:

WHat I say is meaningless! You should know that by now!

I am one who “takes God’s word literally and actually believe what St. Paul wrote in I Tim. 3:2″:...........

"Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money."

Your concern have nothing whatsoever to do with me, but with God!

Click to expand...

Your apparent view that a pastor is required to be married is not shared by the great majority of Protestant denominations who also profess their beliefs are based on Scripture alone. By what authority do you claim to speak for God in this regard and profess they are in error?

Major1 said:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030).

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on "Purgatory:"

CC1031........
"The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. [Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.]

The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.

[Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. [St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:32-36.]"

Source is from YOUR own: Purgatory in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (catholicnewsagency.com)

Is that good enough for you or are you going to think up another excuse to defend what IS NOT BIBLICAL????????

Click to expand...

I do appreciate that you actually used a Catholic source for this.

This part you bolded -- As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.

You claim that the Catholic view of a purifying fire that completely sanctifies us after death is not Biblical. But 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 speaks about our judgment day -- "11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

If you disagree that this is speaking to our purification after death to transform us into what Scripture refers to as “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23), then perhaps you would share your insight as to what this passage does mean when it speaks to us as being saved but only as “through fire.”

Major1 said:

NO! YOU want to know so YOU READ THE BOOK and find out what I already know!

Click to expand...

I’m not the person who made the claim that all children are automatically included in the kingdom of God, but then believe they are removed at some point until they make a decision for Christ. Therefore, you should be able to provide the Scriptural evidence for your claim.

Major1 said:

No mam. I am done giving answers to your questions. IF YOU want to know then YOU do the same study I have done to find out.

Click to expand...

You rarely answer my questions at all. Just an estimate, but I could probably go through this thread and come up with a list of at least 20 questions I've asked you've chosen to ignore. I can draw my own conclusions from that.

You seem to think you can make any claim without the need to provide evidence that it’s valid. In this case, you made the claim that there were men who were rightly able to discern which books were inspired Scripture prior to the church councils. It’s not for me to research it for evidence; I didn’t make the claim so the burden of proof is on you.

If you can’t provide evidence for the claim then you should rescind it.

Major1 said:

Giving you Bible truth is a waste of my time! You simply come up with one excuse to explain the false teachings you have been exposed to.

Click to expand...

It is your choice as to how you spend your time.

Major1 said:

Getting 15 to 20 posts from you every day has become silly. Allow me, with all due respect to you and your faith to explain to you what we have been talking around which you do not seem to understand.

Click to expand...

If you don’t want 15 to 20 responses, then don’t make 15 or 20 unsubstantiated claims. Your expectation seems to be you should be able to post anything you want and not have any scrutiny or challenge of what you've posted, especially when you neglect to source it.

Major1 said:

The Catholic religion is not Biblical Christianity. It is a religion unto itself.

At the same time, the Catholic Church also leads many people away from a genuine faith relationship with Christ. The unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church which I I have detailed for YOU AND YOU HACE REJECTED, have often given the enemies of Christ opportunity to blaspheme.

Click to expand...

So now you can judge how genuine someone's relationship with Christ is?

Major1 said:

The Roman Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus Christ established. It is not a church that is based on the teachings of the Apostles as described in the Book of Acts and the New Testament epistles. While Jesus’ words in Mark 7:9 were directed towards the Pharisees, they accurately describe the Roman Catholic Church, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”

Click to expand...

And you completely ignore that quite different from the traditions of the Pharisees is valid apostolic tradition that was handed down orally (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2), and absolutely no evidence for a doctrine of sola-Scriptura.

Major1 said:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are in disagreement with what the Bible declares. These include but are not limited to......
1. apostolic succession,

Click to expand...

And, here we go again.

Let’s see. Paul was entrusted with the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:17, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Galatians 2:7, 1 Thessalonians 2:4, 1 Timothy 1:11, 2 Timothy 1:12, Titus 1:3)

Paul in turn entrusted Timothy with the Gospel (1 Timothy 6:20, 2 Timothy 1:14).

Paul instructed Timothy to then entrust the Gospel to other faithful men who could then teach others also (2 Timothy 2:1-2).

Major1 said:

2. (Veneration) worship of saints or Mary,

Click to expand...

We are instructed in Scripture to give honor and recognition to those to whom it is due (Romans 13:7, Phillipians 2:29, 1 Corinthians 16:18)

Major1 said:

3. prayer to saints or Mary,

Click to expand...

We are told in Scripture that there is one body of Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 1 Corinthians 12:20, Romans 12:4-5, Ephesians 2:16, Ephesians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 10:17 Colossians 3:15).

We are also told that we can’t profess we don’t need any other part of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:21). To profess you do not need the saints in heaven is not Biblical.

To believe you can ask those on earth to pray for you but you can’t ask those in heaven to pray for you is to create a division in the one body of Christ. Scripture says that no such division exists (1 Corinthians 12:25).

Major1 said:

4. the pope / papacy,

Click to expand...

Is found in the clear leadership position the apostle Peter has over the other apostles as documented in these posts:

Queen of heaven

Queen of heaven

Major1 said:

5. infant baptism,

Click to expand...

Practiced by numerous sola-Scriptura Christians to include Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Nazarenes. By what authority do you claim your interpretation of Scripture is correct on this and theirs is in error?

Major1 said:

6. transubstantiation,

Click to expand...

Yes, we do indeed take Christ at his word when he said “This is my body.”

Major1 said:

7. plenary indulgences,

Click to expand...

Rooted in the Biblical concepts that God blesses people based on the actions of others (Mark 2:1-12, Exodus 32:7-14, Romans 11:28, Genesis 26:24, Genesis 39:5, 1 Kings 11:12-13) and that the Church has the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19, 18:18). The purpose of an indulgence is to to inspire us to live more fruitful and holy lives, and thereby lead us to a more intimate union with Christ and his church.