Mary and Joseph

[repentant]

Do you dress in black, with a black hat, full beard, and one of those knotted skirt thingies they wear?

Well I had a little beard at the time....but yea most people are ignorant to ALOT of things.

 

[IamAdopted]

I like to know what Bible you read..

You do know that the parents of the people called Jesus' brother's is mentioned in Scripture don't you? Also I would like to see where Scripture ever says they were married.

23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us." 24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

This tells me that Yes Mary was a wife and that it was not until after Jesus was born that they had came together..Having more children as is spoken of in the scriptures..The bible even names the brothers just not the sisters and the greek word used means from the same womb..

 

[repentant]

This tells me that Yes Mary was a wife and that it was not until after Jesus was born that they had came together..Having more children as is spoken of in the scriptures..The bible even names the brothers just not the sisters and the greek word used means from the same womb..

No the Greek says that Jospeh took Mary as his yunaika, which means woman. Also the Greek eos ou, the word that was translated as "until", does not convey the same thing as until. Also for you to say that "until" means that after she had Jesus, they had sex, then you would have to use the word "until" in the same context for every other verse it is used in. Such as when Jesus said, "I will be with you even until the end of ages." Do you imply that Jesus will not be with us after the end of ages?

And there is no Greek word used when talking about Jesus' "brothers/sisters" that implies "same womb". Please don't talk to me about Greek..

Now let's see who Jesus' "brother's" really were..

Matthew 13:55
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Matthew 4:21
Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them,

James who is called the Lord's brother twice, is the son of Zebedee. not Mary and Joseph. There was only one Apostle James, he is called the Lord's brother, yet he is Zebedee's son..


Matthew 27:56
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Now there is a Joseph called the Lord's brother above in Matt. 13:55..yet here Joses, another word for Joseph, is the son of another Mary..

 

[Uphill Battle]

HOw is that? The Church Christ established DID NOT progress, and is the same as it always has been.

really? the believers in acts sold all their possessions, lived and worshiped together daily, ate together daily, etc.... no church does that today.

some things have changed, like it or not.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

really? the believers in acts sold all their possessions, lived and worshiped together daily, ate together daily, etc.... no church does that today.

some things have changed, like it or not.

I agree, some things have changed.

The Church is an organic being. The core remains the same, but the tree grows.

Forgive me...

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

really? the believers in acts sold all their possessions, lived and worshiped together daily, ate together daily, etc.... no church does that today.

some things have changed, like it or not.

Actually, there are still numerous Orthodox Christian communities that do just Acts describes, notably Romanian communities in Canada, and numerous communities throughout Eastern Europe, communities built around the Church and monasteries.

I think it would be helpful if people knew about the traditions that they give opinions about.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

I agree, some things have changed.

The Church is an organic being. The core remains the same, but the tree grows.

Forgive me...

but the church hasn't 'changed'?? You said in a previous post it hadn't, now you are saying it is growing...gee..kinda like what I SAID??

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

but the church hasn't 'changed'?? You said in a previous post it hadn't, now you are saying it is growing...gee..kinda like what I SAID??

I said it hasn't changed? Which post are you speaking of?

We can look to the book of ACTS to see the first changes that took place. The Church is not stagnant...

Chapter one of ACTS shows the replacement of Judas.

Later we see the addition of Deacons to The Church.

Chapter 15 show a change in the way gentiles are expected to behave in contrast to Jewish Christians.

What I would state, is that, within The Orthodox Churches the core beliefs remain intact and unchanged. The very meaning of the Holy Scriptures that was revealed by Christ to the Apostles is preserved.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Actually, there are still numerous Orthodox Christian communities that do just Acts describes, notably Romanian communities in Canada, and numerous communities throughout Eastern Europe, communities built around the Church and monasteries.

I think it would be helpful if people knew about the traditions that they give opinions about.

and why don't all the others, if the way that things were done have never changed?

For good or ill, things have changed over the last 2000 years, there really is no way of escaping that fact.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

and why don't all the others, if the way that things were done have never changed?

For good or ill, things have changed over the last 2000 years, there really is no way of escaping that fact.

For one thing, a quick survey of scripture makes it clear that not all of the Church was living as they did in Jerusalem (Acts 2/4). The Church has always had a variety of expressions. This is NOT analogous to the divisions and heterodoxy that we see today- those diverse communities all obeyed apostolic authority, and all drank fom one cup, as it were.

Have things changed? Yes and no.

 

[repentant]

really? the believers in acts sold all their possessions, lived and worshiped together daily, ate together daily, etc.... no church does that today.

some things have changed, like it or not.

You ever heard of a Monastery..?

But really that has nothing to do with beliefs..

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

and why don't all the others, if the way that things were done have never changed?

For good or ill, things have changed over the last 2000 years, there really is no way of escaping that fact.

Different communities have different needs.

Forgive me...

 

[Benedicta00]

You are most gracious. You are forgiven.

Please, forgive me, the sinner.

...

awe...

 

[Benedicta00]

really? the believers in acts sold all their possessions, lived and worshiped together daily, ate together daily, etc.... no church does that today.

some things have changed, like it or not.

You have to blame the ppl for that not the Church. Ppl are infested with something called sin and schism and division are our fault, not the Church's fault.

Protestantism certainty didn't fix this problem, it worsened it.

The Orthodox will say nothing changed since he 3 rd century and accuse the Catholic Church of changing but we have a different view and acknowledge the Holy Spirit didn't go comatose after the 3 rd century.

The Holy Spirit is who leads us to greater understanding and expressions of our faith, the same faith that was taught by the early Church.

But all this bickering is besides the point, the point is Protestants can not explain away why the early Church was fully Catholic, in her theology and in her worship.

The early Church taught Catholicism and sure the Orthodox will say they have remained closer to that and we will say the Church does not have to remain stagnant but as we evolve as ppl so does our understanding but the fact remains, the early Church was Catholic in every sense and NOT Protestant, not by a long shot.

So each person is going to have to eveanlly rationalize their own beliefs, either they can ignore ancient history or they can ell themselves that the Church went off course in the first century, in any even it doesn't matter what we Catholics and Orthodox claim, the record is there for anyone to see and they can make their decision how the faith of the early Church fits into our faith we have now.

 

[IamAdopted]

The early Church taught Catholicism and sure the Orthodox will say they have remained closer to that and we will say the Church does not have to remain stagnant but as we evolve as ppl so does our understanding but the fact remains, the early Church was Catholic in every sense and NOT Protestant, not by a long shot.

Don't see Paul or any of the Apostles teaching Catholicism.. It is not written about in the scriptures.. This is the early church. Peter never once claimed to be a pope.. Paul never once had to go through Peter to find out what to teach. Nothing in scripture about Mass or Popes or sacraments or indulgences or pennance.. Scripture teaches us that we are free in Christ. Not bound to a pope. Scripture teaches us that Christ is the head of His church not a pope. Scripture teaches us that many will come in His name and say they are He but not to listen. Nothing in scripture teaches us that a priest can obsolve sins.. Nothing in scripture about Mary and co redemtrix.. Not even spoken of by any of the Apostles.. So what early church are you speaking of here.. For the early church was written down for all to see..

 

[Uphill Battle]

You have to blame the ppl for that not the Church. Ppl are infested with something called sin and schism and division are our fault, not the Church's fault.

Protestantism certainty didn't fix this problem, it worsened it.

The Orthodox will say nothing changed since he 3 rd century and accuse the Catholic Church of changing but we have a different view and acknowledge the Holy Spirit didn't go comatose after the 3 rd century.

The Holy Spirit is who leads us to greater understanding and expressions of our faith, the same faith that was taught by the early Church.

But all this bickering is besides the point, the point is Protestants can not explain away why the early Church was fully Catholic, in her theology and in her worship.

The early Church taught Catholicism and sure the Orthodox will say they have remained closer to that and we will say the Church does not have to remain stagnant but as we evolve as ppl so does our understanding but the fact remains, the early Church was Catholic in every sense and NOT Protestant, not by a long shot.

So each person is going to have to eveanlly rationalize their own beliefs, either they can ignore ancient history or they can ell themselves that the Church went off course in the first century, in any even it doesn't matter what we Catholics and Orthodox claim, the record is there for anyone to see and they can make their decision how the faith of the early Church fits into our faith we have now.

you're right, the record is there.

difference is, most other people will acknowledge that the church changed time and time again, the leaders of the church committed heinous crimes, erroneous teachings were forwarded, disunity and heresy spread, politics took precedence over spiritual matters. Really what it boils down to, is whomever is in charge in any given time period calls the shots on what history is true, what history is not. Today is no different.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Don't see Paul or any of the Apostles teaching Catholicism.. It is not written about in the scriptures.. This is the early church. Peter never once claimed to be a pope.. Paul never once had to go through Peter to find out what to teach. Nothing in scripture about Mass or Popes or sacraments or indulgences or pennance.. Scripture teaches us that we are free in Christ. Not bound to a pope. Scripture teaches us that Christ is the head of His church not a pope. Scripture teaches us that many will come in His name and say they are He but not to listen. Nothing in scripture teaches us that a priest can obsolve sins.. Nothing in scripture about Mary and co redemtrix.. Not even spoken of by any of the Apostles.. So what early church are you speaking of here.. For the early church was written down for all to see..

maybe the church that started in ACTS?? I mean, I agree with you IAA. NOTHING remotely catholic was taught by ANYONE in the Bible. The 'church' started in Acts with Peter preacing, 3000 getting saved and baptized. And Jesus did NOT teach Peter the "mass" Communion yes, but not all the other stuff revolving around the mass. I know what Mass is, cause I have gone with my mother. Sorry to say, the ONLY reason I stayed, is because I wanted to be with my mother in church..so to honor her, I stayed. Had I been there alone..I would of walked out. Been to high mass too...not sure which one was worse! Maybe the high one cause of all the incense (also not spoken of in the early church)..but anyway..that was just something else. SO I do know what I am talking about with mass.

 

[Benedicta00]

Don't see Paul or any of the Apostles teaching Catholicism.. It is not written about in the scriptures.. This is the early church. Peter never once claimed to be a pope.. Paul never once had to go through Peter to find out what to teach. Nothing in scripture about Mass or Popes or sacraments or indulgences or pennance.. Scripture teaches us that we are free in Christ. Not bound to a pope. Scripture teaches us that Christ is the head of His church not a pope. Scripture teaches us that many will come in His name and say they are He but not to listen. Nothing in scripture teaches us that a priest can obsolve sins.. Nothing in scripture about Mary and co redemtrix.. Not even spoken of by any of the Apostles.. So what early church are you speaking of here.. For the early church was written down for all to see..

Bull to all of that. and half of what you complain about isn't doctrine but devotions.

See folks? One of two thing will happen once you read the faith of the first generations of Christians after the apostles themselves, one will either deny the teachings of those who actually learned from the apostles themselves or they will be convicted and surprised by truth.

I bet IAA didn't realize the Fathers like Polycarp learned form John himself.

IAA, you read the bible and conclude stuff I never would, becuase that is how you have bee programed to read the bible.

You have been taught that Rome is this, that and the other thing, but what makes you think your exegesis is correct? And that the anti Catholic rhetoric spin is fair and balanced?

You are not infallible, are you? You could be very well mistaken about the whole thing. Can't you?

That's something for you to consider. Denial can be a, you know what.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Bull to all of that. and half of what you complain about isn't doctrine but devotions.

See folks? One of two thing will happen once you read the faith of the first generations of Christians after the apostles themselves, one will either deny the teachings of those who actually learned from the apostles themselves or they will be convicted and surprised by truth.

I bet IAA didn't realize the Fathers like Polycarp learned form John himself.

IAA, you read the bible and conclude stuff I never would, becuase that is how you have bee programed to read the bible.

You have been taught that Rome is this, that and the other thing, but what makes you think your exegesis is correct? And that the anti Catholic rhetoric spin is fair and balanced?

You are not infallible, are you? You could be very well mistaken about the whole thing. Can't you?

That's something for you to consider. Denial can be a, you know what.

why are you so offended at this? Bene..none of it is in Scripture. YOU have been programmed to see it the way you do...maybe YOU could be wrong? Maybe some of the doctrine etc YOU have been taught is wrong? If you have peace and your faith is ok in the catholic denomination, that is fine. I honestly, went, tried it..and hated it. I won't go back. I saw/heard/learned stuff there that is so wrong according to the Word..not what is taught. I am sorry, but SOME of the stuff the church teaches IS wrong.

 

[Benedicta00]

maybe the church that started in ACTS?? I mean, I agree with you IAA. NOTHING remotely catholic was taught by ANYONE in the Bible. The 'church' started in Acts with Peter preacing, 3000 getting saved and baptized. And Jesus did NOT teach Peter the "mass" Communion yes, but not all the other stuff revolving around the mass. I know what Mass is, cause I have gone with my mother. Sorry to say, the ONLY reason I stayed, is because I wanted to be with my mother in church..so to honor her, I stayed. Had I been there alone..I would of walked out. Been to high mass too...not sure which one was worse! Maybe the high one cause of all the incense (also not spoken of in the early church)..but anyway..that was just something else. SO I do know what I am talking about with mass.

If you conclude that, becuase you think the bible is all that there is and you read it through Protestant colored glasses with a contempt for the Catholic Church then no wonder you don't see what we do.

And I don't see what you do for the same reason.

But ask yourself, why do we see this so clearly and you don't?

Billions are Catholic and Orthodox all over the world, so there is something to our claim.

I can show you every biblical justification for what the Church teaches and you'll just say I'm twisting scripture and I can say the same about you... so where does that leave us?

you are no more infallible than me and I am no more infallible than you are.

So surely God gave us an objective way to discern this that is independent of both of us trying to interpret scripture for ourselves.

Wouldn't you agree?