Catholic vs Protestant Debate.

[Xanthus]

she did...quite well.
she has nothing to take back.

her assumptions and reasonings are no more far fetched than yours.

you have Joseph:

previously married with kids i think...
old and having died by the Crucifixion is your proof his kids would be so much older.
Joseph not interested in normal relations with his wife, which God blesses.
and mary not interested...like why....why do that.

Matthew 1:25
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

[....]
if the bible wanted to make a special point of saying they had no sexual relations and therefore no other kids...it would have SPELLED IT OUT and given the reason why.

stop adding stuff that isnt there and just honor the blessed virgin as we all do.
k...thx

That is not what "I would have" about Joseph. Please consider the Context.

"previously married with kids i think..."

Note the qualifier I added with this "If you accept that Joseph was much older" which most do because scripture pretty much clearly states that.

"old and having died by the Crucifixion is your proof his kids would be so much older."

I did not state that outright and offer it as "proof" of anything (why do so many people play these deceptive word games?!)

"Joseph not interested in normal relations with his wife, which God blesses."
Again, I did not state that outright but only offered his advancing years as a possible scenario to set the stage for the possibility that his interest, among other things, might be 'flagging' at that point in life - all VERY reasonable conjecture and only offered as conjecture in the context of explaining the non-dilemma being proposed.

"and mary not interested" -- I don't think I said that. Though if true it is hardly a rarity. History is filled with celibate religious figures.

"...like why....why do that. "

probably because for the most part, I didn't.

"and therefore no other kids...it would have SPELLED IT OUT" You think so? Then what about my expectation that the Bible would have SPELLED IT OUT if she had given birth to other kids. Just as reasonable?

I added nothing that isn't there. And if you don't mind I will do so if I so choose and I would thank you to stop telling me what to do as though you were my superior in a position to order me about in that fashion.

My request to the verbally abusive, presumptuous Rachel stands.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Perhaps. But it definitely comes across to me like he did have brothers. Coupled with the fact that Jewish society put emphasis on couples having children together, I, personally, would say that Jesus did have brothers who were born of Mary.

Tell me something - if Jesus had uterine siblings, why would He place His mother in the care of a person OUTSIDE the family (John) after His death?
This would have been a grievous insult and caused great scandal to the family and the community.

 

[willfollowsGod]

Jesus did have brothers, he just would not call them that. I think James was one and there were others and maybe some sisters as well. I can't recall more off the top of my head.

 

[Xanthus]

Tell me something - if Jesus had uterine siblings, why would He place His mother in the care of a person OUTSIDE the family (John) after His death?
This would have been a grievous insult and caused great scandal to the family and the community.

Exactly!
I was going to bring this up as well but my replies were getting too long and I wanted to keep them directly related to the points already made.

Thank You.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

That all? wow! and ive noticed all the work that goes into it. Remarkable.
I can see it fitting in the past...but to carry on with it today is rather odd.
But what is the reason for making Mary more holy?

[

i guess they have a need for the mother of jesus to be completely holy..
after all we can't have sinners in jesus' family tree...and prostitutes like rahab are right out...

Let me give you both a Scripture lesson.

Mary is the fulfillment of the OT Type that was the Ark of the Covenant.
Whereas the Ark carried symbols of God within it, Mary actually carried God witin her womb. This is why she was proclaimed Theotokos (God Bearer) at the 1st Council of Ephesus in 431.

Don't believe the Ark was an OT type of Mary? Let's examine the facts:

a. The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
b. The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

a. [The New Covenant] will not be like the covenant that... they broke though I was their husband (Jer. 31:31)
b. The Holy Spirit (God) is Mary's spouse (Luke 1:35)

a. "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
b. "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

a. When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
b. When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

a. The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
b. Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

a. The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
b. Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

Now - here is a general Scriptural rule about types and fulfillmets:
NT Fulfillments are ALWAYS more perfect and glorious than their OT Types. ALWAYS - without exception - and this case is NO diffrent.

If the Ark, which was a type was pure and un defiled, Mary, the fulfillment would have to be that much MORE pure and undefiled.

There ends the lesson.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Jesus did have brothers, he just would not call them that. I think James was one and there were others and maybe some sisters as well. I can't recall more off the top of my head.

WRONG.
At the foot of the cross, we see the "other Mary", the wife of Clopas, also known as Alphaeus who is the mother of James, Joses and Simon - the so-called "brothren of the Lord".

Try again.

 

[willfollowsGod]

WRONG.
At the foot of the cross, we see the "other Mary", the wife of Clopas, also known as Alphaeus who is the mother of James, Joses and Simon - the so-called "brothren of the Lord".

Try again.

Saying I am wrong, without telling me why I am wrong, is like telling a kid you are doing something wrong and the kid is like what am I doing wrong and they don't understand you. Where am I wrong? Again I said I think James was one and I was right. Though the way you said it, was very judgmental. The brothers were Joses (Joseph), James, Judas, and Simon (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:47). The sisters names were not recorded, (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Saying I am wrong, without telling me why I am wrong, is like telling a kid you are doing something wrong and the kid is like what am I doing wrong and they don't understand you. Where am I wrong? Again I said I think James was one but I was wrong, thanks for correcting me on that. Though the way you said it, was very judgmental.

Your statement was wrong:

"Jesus did have brothers, he just would not call them that. I think James was one and there were others and maybe some sisters as well. I can't recall more off the top of my head."


By the way - I DID show you where you were wrong by pointing out who the mother of these "brethren" was - and it wasn't Jesus' moom.

 

[livingepistle]

I am a Catholic and I would like to have a one on one debate with any Protestant from any denomination, bring up anything on what you do not agree with on the Catholic church as in doctrine, tradition, the papacy, praying to saints etc. I will answer the best I can with love and charity.

God Bless

I do not agree with the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church by this Creed, has changed not only the world but divided the 1st Century Church concerning the Godhead.

My ground rules for this discussion is just that--"For Discussion"; I never debate the Word.

What follows is the text of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[willfollowsGod]

I agree with the Nicene Creed. As for Catholics, if you are saved even if I have an issue with your doctrine, praise be to God. If your doctrine has become God, then it is time to think about who God is biblically. God bless all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[livingepistle]

I agree with the Nicene Creed. As for Catholics, if you are saved even if I have an issue with your doctrine, praise be to God. If your doctrine has become God, then it is time to think about who God is biblically. God bless all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

...Confused by your remarks.

I am certain that SaintAnthony will understand the depth of my question. Most religious individuals agree with the Nicene Creed until they study its origin and how it became the dogma that it is today, but then, maybe you do also.

 

[Xanthus]

I do not agree with the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church by this Creed, has changed not only the world but divided the 1st Century Church concerning the Godhead.

My ground rules for this discussion is just that--"For Discussion"; I never debate the Word.

What follows is the text of the Nicene Creed:

What part do you disagree with?

FYI; That creed did not exist in the first century.

 

[hattiebod]

There is no perfect denomination, the same way there are no perfect people.

We shouldn't lay another foundation for sinlessness, except for Jesus, because he is man's gateway to being freed from sin. But not via what that man inherently holds as doctrine concerning Jesus, rather I believe it is more through the fact that nobody can go to God unless they are cleansed from sin via Jesus' sacrifice first, and to be honest, in this life, none of us are 'free of sin'. it takes a person to die first. The best we can do in this life is 'walk the path less trodden'.

If sin died with Jesus then it makes sense that if we still commit sins, as John says all do, then our sins also die at death. Alike to Jesus.

'For he who dies is freed of human nature'.

The argument is always 'muslims don't BELIEVE our doctrine', but that's not the real issue. The real issue is do they adhere to living their lives the way Jesus led his?

Blind faith always comes second to compassionate living. I don't believe Jesus said 'if you don't have a certain doctrine, you're going to hell', I believe he said, basically 'Live BY me to have life'. As in, walk beside me, or 'do as I do'.

So to me, a Muslim who 'does as Jesus does' and lives a life of compassion and self sacrifice, already has a quality of life better than many Christians, and also, in my eyes, is a righteous person, as much as one can be in a mortal life immersed in sinful cause and effect.

That applies to Catholics too.

Sorry, do not mean to derail thread but are you saying that as long as someone 'lives' a good life, they are in a salvation relationship with Jesus? They could just try and sort of copy his ways...be kind, loving...avoid as much sin as possible? So it would not matter whether they were Hindu , Bhuddist, Muslim or whatever, as long as they were 'good'? Better than a Christian? Just wanted you to clarify for me, thank you God Bless, <><

 

[hattiebod]

whats the point of proving Marys perpetual virginity?
Ive forgotten, can someone remind me please?
What is the fruit from that?

Much more interesting that the Catholic church declare she is co-redemptrix with Christ...... <><

 

[zone]

That is not what "I would have" about Joseph. Please consider the Context.

"previously married with kids i think..."

Note the qualifier I added with this "If you accept that Joseph was much older" which most do because scripture pretty much clearly states that.

"old and having died by the Crucifixion is your proof his kids would be so much older."

I did not state that outright and offer it as "proof" of anything (why do so many people play these deceptive word games?!)

"Joseph not interested in normal relations with his wife, which God blesses."
Again, I did not state that outright but only offered his advancing years as a possible scenario to set the stage for the possibility that his interest, among other things, might be 'flagging' at that point in life - all VERY reasonable conjecture and only offered as conjecture in the context of explaining the non-dilemma being proposed.

"and mary not interested" -- I don't think I said that. Though if true it is hardly a rarity. History is filled with celibate religious figures.

"...like why....why do that. "

probably because for the most part, I didn't.

"and therefore no other kids...it would have SPELLED IT OUT" You think so? Then what about my expectation that the Bible would have SPELLED IT OUT if she had given birth to other kids. Just as reasonable?

I added nothing that isn't there. And if you don't mind I will do so if I so choose and I would thank you to stop telling me what to do as though you were my superior in a position to order me about in that fashion.

My request to the verbally abusive, presumptuous Rachel stands.

well alrighty. and thank you

now that i'm paying closer attention - would you consider a brief summary (bullet form? if possible) of what extra-biblical reasons you DO have for the perpetual virginity of Mary strictly as it relates to her marital relationship, and or Joseph?

(also, do you believe and teach "the immaculate conception"?)

thank you again, then
k.

 

[Xanthus]

well alrighty. and thank you

now that i'm paying closer attention - would you consider a brief summary (bullet form? if possible) of what extra-biblical reasons you DO have for the perpetual virginity of Mary strictly as it relates to her marital relationship, and or Joseph?

(also, do you believe and teach "the immaculate conception"?)

thank you again, then
k.

Gosh! It never ceases to amaze me how so many people will ask someone to defend a position they have never taken, explain an idea they have never uttered, defend a belief they have never expressed...

"what extra-biblical reasons you DO have for the perpetual virginity of Mary"

What? Did I claim to have any?

First I believed and then I didn't believe and then I sorta kinda believed and then ...well, suffice it to say that my opinion on these matters varies greatly over time and boy!... that's one of the really good things for Catholics... it is okay to entertain all manner of doubts.... Especially since some of the doctrine involves some real mind-bending concepts that remind me of Gnostic Christianity, which I am totally cool with... but I digress....
What were you saying?...

 

[hattiebod]

Just a thought...but has the gentleman who began this thread been back at all? <><

 

[Kisses1990]

Catholics ARE christian. They believe in, and worship Jesus. Just because they have some traditions that everyone doesn't agree with does not make them not christian.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Catholics ARE christian. They believe in, and worship Jesus. Just because they have some traditions that everyone doesn't agree with does not make them not christian.

I'll go even further than that.
Catholics were the very FIRST Christians.

 

[Nautilus]

who cares if mary stayed a virgin or not, ive honestly never given it a thought, its not important