Lean not on your own understanding, trust in God with all your heart.

Life is short, focus on Him.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wrong again, hater of your brothers.

---

Galatians 4:16

Quote:

---

Protestants trust Scripture to apply to questions, while it seems RCC depend on whatever Rome wants.

---

Yes, yes that's what they always say, and yet they draw thousands of different conclusions and promote different doctrines based on that same scripture.

The tell was when you said "real protestants only." In other words, the ones that agree with you.

So, are Lutherans - who do not believe in eternal security or OSAS, teach infant baptism, and believe in the real presence - "real protestants"? Are Pentecostals right when they say that speaking in tongues is mandatory as evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit? Or are Charismatics right when they say it is optional? Or are Baptists right when they say it's all hogwash? You asked for illustrations, and here you go. I could keep going, but there isn't enough memory in this forum's server to list all the examples.

These aren't fringe doctrines. They are central to how God is worshiped and the Christian life is lived out.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Why are His sisters always left out of these discussions? I find it curious that Catholics ignore them. Is it because the word for "sisters" is another synonym for "cousins" meaning it could just as easily bd translated His "mother, cousins, and cousins"? That would be silly and redundant. I don't know Aramaic so I honestly don't know about any translation issues but that argument always seems weak. It's almost as if those who make it don't believe it either.

---

"Mother, cousins, and cousins" would not be redundant in a language with gendered noun forms.

---

That language also has a specific word for "cousins" which the writer doesn't use. That's the problem with the RC and Orthodox ad hoc view here.

But the main issue is this: according to RC and Orthodoxy, even though God's word directly states that Jesus had "adelphos" (brothers), the Christian is to NOT understand that by its plain meaning, but rather MUST believe that it is referring to his cousins or kinsmen or else they are anathematized to Hell. In other words, RC and Orthodoxy effectively ties this belief to one's salvation, which is changing the gospel (and thus, the only real anathema here).

---

I'm pretty sure Aramaic doesn't have a specific word for cousins. The Greek language does, but it wouldn't make any sense to use it if you're referring to a group of various relatives.

As others have mentioned, this reasoning is far from ad hoc. It is the historical Christian view.

---

I meant "expression" for "cousins". In Aramaic, it would be expressed as "son of the uncle" and the like. There would not have been any problem translating that into Greek. "Historical view" doesn't mean it isn't ad hoc.

Regardless, the main issue of RC and Orthodoxy adding to the gospel by making one's salvation dependent on all this remains.

---

Bottom line is that we can't be sure from word choice alone. We either accept the tradition or reject it. As Coke Bear mentioned, however, Mary's response to the angel makes it pretty clear she never planned to have children.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, more insults, false claims and malice from you.

Your fruit certainly proves its value clear.

---

You appear to not be reading your own posts. Keep it focused on your belief system not attacks on individuals

---

Seriously, you need to take your own advice, brother.

---

Please note a personal attack from me. I can't help it if it gets personal for you. Only you can control you. Pointing out flaws in your logic or misunderstandings you have isnt a personal attack as bad as you want it to be one.

---

Check your 9:57 post. Calls me a hypocrite as well as implies I am stupid.

Should I continue further back?

---

Oh describing your personal attack on me is a personal attack? Ok. Moving on.

---

Interesting deflection. You are more and more like BusyTarpDuster in your tactics.

Noted.

" I find it interesting that you claim that "Scripture does not mean what it says.""

I never claimed that, actually. I have always maintained that Scripture does mean what it says, and I think you know that.

Interesting you would try a blatantly dishonest tactic like that.

In any case, Scripture says Jesus had brothers. I really don't care how many humans you line up to pretend that was not true.

And nothing you say is going to get me to bow down to Mary. She was a faithful servant to the Lord, not some idol to be worshipped.

" Mary's response to the angel makes it pretty clear she never planned to have children."

Not what Scripture says.

" The tell was when you said "real protestants only." In other words, the ones that agree with you."

What I actually said was asking you not to lump non-denominational groups in with Protestants.

But I can see how someone who hates anyone outside their sect would not understand the difference. And be willing to lie about context.

4th and Inches said:

---

Lean not on your own understanding, trust in God with all your heart.

Life is short, focus on Him.

---

Well said, sir.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wrong again, hater of your brothers.

---

Galatians 4:16

Quote:

---

Protestants trust Scripture to apply to questions, while it seems RCC depend on whatever Rome wants.

---

Yes, yes that's what they always say, and yet they draw thousands of different conclusions and promote different doctrines based on that same scripture.

The tell was when you said "real protestants only." In other words, the ones that agree with you.

So, are Lutherans - who do not believe in eternal security or OSAS, teach infant baptism, and believe in the real presence - "real protestants"? Are Pentecostals right when they say that speaking in tongues is mandatory as evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit? Or are Charismatics right when they say it is optional? Or are Baptists right when they say it's all hogwash? You asked for illustrations, and here you go. I could keep going, but there isn't enough memory in this forum's server to list all the examples.

These aren't fringe doctrines. They are central to how God is worshiped and the Christian life is lived out.

---

Everything you mentioned here is absolutely fringe stuff. It has nothing to do with salvation.
This is what makes RCC a false religion, they vastly change the gospel to be salvation by grace that is earned through works & Sacraments. The scriptures are very clear that if gracee is earned, it is not grace. We are saved by the gift of grace and not by works so that no man can boast. The forgiveness of sin comes from the grace that Christ alone paid for on the cross... not from some random priest who gathers grace from the treasury of merit which was earned by other humans.
No human can earn grace or salvation. Only Christ was able to achieve salvation for us, yet the RCC teaches the opposite.
1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."88

The RCC directly contradicts scriptures by saying that saints have "attained their own salvation". Some may say that this is just worded in the wrong way, but the RCC spent months and even years debating & discussing the exact wording of this supposedly infallible teaching. They used these words on purpose. Each word & phrase was debated & discussed extensively.

This is NOT the gospel taught by Jesus or the apostles. This is a different gospel... the doctrines of men.

Matthew 15:7-9 CEV
[7] And you are nothing but show-offs! Isaiah the prophet was right when he wrote that God had said, [8] "All of you praise me with your words, but you never really think about me. [9] It is useless for you to worship me, when you teach rules made up by humans."

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wrong again, hater of your brothers.

---

Galatians 4:16

Quote:

---

Protestants trust Scripture to apply to questions, while it seems RCC depend on whatever Rome wants.

---

Yes, yes that's what they always say, and yet they draw thousands of different conclusions and promote different doctrines based on that same scripture.

The tell was when you said "real protestants only." In other words, the ones that agree with you.

So, are Lutherans - who do not believe in eternal security or OSAS, teach infant baptism, and believe in the real presence - "real protestants"? Are Pentecostals right when they say that speaking in tongues is mandatory as evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit? Or are Charismatics right when they say it is optional? Or are Baptists right when they say it's all hogwash? You asked for illustrations, and here you go. I could keep going, but there isn't enough memory in this forum's server to list all the examples.

These aren't fringe doctrines. They are central to how God is worshiped and the Christian life is lived out.

---

Everything you mentioned here is absolutely fringe stuff. It has nothing to do with salvation.
This is what makes RCC a false religion, they vastly change the gospel to be salvation by grace that is earned through works & Sacraments. The scriptures are very clear that if gracee is earned, it is not grace. We are saved by the gift of grace and not by works so that no man can boast. The forgiveness of sin comes from the grace that Christ alone paid for on the cross... not from some random priest who gathers grace from the treasury of merit which was earned by other humans.
No human can earn grace or salvation. Only Christ was able to achieve salvation for us, yet the RCC teaches the opposite.
1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."88

The RCC directly contradicts scriptures by saying that saints have "attained their own salvation". Some may say that this is just worded in the wrong way, but the RCC spent months and even years debating & discussing the exact wording of this supposedly infallible teaching. They used these words on purpose. Each word & phrase was debated & discussed extensively.

This is NOT the gospel taught by Jesus or the apostles. This is a different gospel... the doctrines of men.

Matthew 15:7-9 CEV
[7] And you are nothing but show-offs! Isaiah the prophet was right when he wrote that God had said, [8] "All of you praise me with your words, but you never really think about me. [9] It is useless for you to worship me, when you teach rules made up by humans."

---

It is useless for you to worship me, when you teach rules made up by humans."

Is that an accurate description from the original Greek? I find the quote vulnerable to interpretation. After all we have on book but over 1,000 denominations, many with a supervisory body with its set of rules/beliefs, which are often based on parsed snippets of scripture and interpretation of the same scriptures. Not a good reflection of where Jesus wants us to be--at least by the time He heads our direction from the East. How one becomes saved, stays saved, views grace, baptism issues, churches which are more of a business &/or feel good ministry, etc., seems to change with the wind, rather than the explicit words of Jesus, and the intent and context of those words, and His actions.

There are plenty of possible reasons that the contributions of Jesus's family to the early church are not documented. The historical records from 2,000 years ago are quite limited compared to the overwhelming volume of info we have today on everything. They might not have recorded it or might not have wanted it to be recorded because they were working for God instead of human recognition, a subject Jesus Himself preached on. During His lifetime, His family had rejected His teachings thinking that maybe He was crazy. More than one gospel recorded this encounter and this is the case in the passage in Matthew with the record of His siblings. Some scholars think the book of James was written by the brother of Jesus. If so, there is a clear record of Christian wisdom in the NT from a member of His family. This book is a huge contribution. These are a few possible explanations.

But this is speculation. We don't know for sure about what they did. It doesn't matter because the early Christian's were doing God's work for His kingdom. Their focus was not on personal recognition. These explanations are far more plausible than the illogic of a married couple remaining celebrate in a culture that encouraged and celebrated having children. Maybe you do not understand Jewish culture as much as you think you do.

For some reason, you have the need to make up all kinds of silly, illogical arguments to make an indefensible point which defies scripture and logic. I wonder why.

And why do you seemingly elevate Mary to the level of equality of Jesus? Do you pray to a sinful human who died 2,000 years ago? Do you believe that she was also divinely conceived and born of a virgin? Do you believe that she was also without sin? Do you falsely label her as divine? All of these are examples of idolatry and worshipping a false god. I hope and pray that none of these statements are true of you and that if they are, you repent and seek salvation from the only source possible: Jesus Christ.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6

Coke Bear said:

---

Joseph isn't a fraud because he didn't consummate their marriage. He understood that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

---

No scripture anywhere makes such an absurd and blatantly false claim. It is also completely illogical. Even if Mary was a bigamist with two husbands, something never recorded in the NT or in OT prophecy, there would be no reason to remain celibate. That would go against God's will for married couples to have children which Joseph and Mary obviously did.

The Virgin Mary conceived because the Holy Spirit performed a miracle. As the Angel told her, nothing is impossible with God. It's as simple as that. There is no reason to extrapolate anything beyond that.

historian said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Joseph isn't a fraud because he didn't consummate their marriage. He understood that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

---

No scripture anywhere makes such an absurd and blatantly false claim. It is also completely illogical. Even if Mary was a bigamist with two husbands, something never recorded in the NT or in OT prophecy, there would be no reason to remain celibate. That would go against God's will for married couples to have children which Joseph and Mary obviously did.

The Virgin Mary conceived because the Holy Spirit performed a miracle. As the Angel told her, nothing is impossible with God. It's as simple as that. There is no reason to extrapolate anything beyond that.

---

You realize women to this day do this for the same reasons Mary did it dont you?

historian said:

---

No scripture anywhere makes such an absurd and blatantly false claim. It is also completely illogical. Even if Mary was a bigamist with two husbands, something never recorded in the NT or in OT prophecy, there would be no reason to remain celibate. That would go against God's will for married couples to have children which Joseph and Mary obviously did.

---

Well another legitimate reason would be if she was widowed due to Joseph's advanced age and early death, with Joseph's other children being from a prior marriage.

You need to understand that if Joseph and Mary were of the same age and had children together then Jesus would be their oldest child.

If you look at the way in which his brothers deal with him in John 7, it is not the way in which younger siblings would confront/question an elder sibling in bibllical times.

If you look at the Protoevangelium of James as nothing more than a 2nd century historical text, that is the case it makes and nothing in scripture contradicts that.

Joseph disappears from the gospel record fairly early, also giving weight to the concept that he died early in Jesus life.

This was settled doctrine for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

The circumstantial case, not contradicted by anything in scripture, supports her perpetual virginity.

Single women often do. I know married couples generally don't discuss it but I don't know if any couples who remain celibate. It's irrelevant what people do today in western culture. In ancient Israel it was almost certain that married couples tried to have multiple children.

Again, you are inventing reasons to make an illogical claim that directly contradicts scripture.

" Well another legitimate reason would be if she was widowed due to Joseph's advanced age and early death, with Joseph's other children being from a prior marriage."

Another claim with no evidence in Scripture.

There is no reason in scripture to assume Joseph was in advanced years of that they remained celibate. While it's possible he was much older, it's far more likely that Joseph and Mary were about the same age and had children. It is reasonable to conclude that Joseph was deceased before Jesus began his ministry since he is not mentioned in the gospels during this time. But there is no reason to assume this happened much earlier.

Eventually, you are going to have to accept that if you must invent unsupported theories to make a claim, the claim is invalid. Again, scripture is very clear that Jesus had siblings and there is no reason to doubt scripture about them having a normal marriage.

historian said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Joseph isn't a fraud because he didn't consummate their marriage. He understood that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

---

No scripture anywhere makes such an absurd and blatantly false claim. It is also completely illogical. Even if Mary was a bigamist with two husbands, something never recorded in the NT or in OT prophecy, there would be no reason to remain celibate. That would go against God's will for married couples to have children which Joseph and Mary obviously did.

The Virgin Mary conceived because the Holy Spirit performed a miracle. As the Angel told her, nothing is impossible with God. It's as simple as that. There is no reason to extrapolate anything beyond that.

---

This will blow your mind. I have found so many things protestant Christian's have never considered about what they think they believe or are taught.

Please study what it means to be "Betrothed" in the Jewish tradition. And then ask yourself why Joseph felt he needed to divorce Mary and would have due to what betrothal requires of the woman if not for the message he received.

Now consider what is absurd knowing what you believe was not believed for 1600 years or so by anyone and then by only a few and probably by more today than at any time in history due to the schism you Participate in.

historian said:

---

There is no reason in scripture to assume Joseph was in advanced years of that they remained celibate. While it's possible he was much older, it's far more likely that Joseph and Mary were about the same age and had children. It is reasonable to conclude that Joseph was deceased before Jesus began his ministry since he is not mentioned in the gospels during this time. But there is no reason to assume this happened much earlier.

Eventually, you are going to have to accept that if you must invent unsupported theories to make a claim, the claim is invalid. Again, scripture is very clear that Jesus had siblings and there is no reason to doubt scripture about them having a normal marriage.

---

And yet the opposite of everything you state has been documented since the beginning.

Thats the hurdle you must overcome, as you read the Bible in English minus 10% of the books

1600 years of tradition go not trump scripture

Again, there is no reason to believe anything that contradicts the plain words of scripture. God's word is the ultimate authority. Tradition was invented by men: imperfect, fallible, sinners. They are the opposite of God.

historian depends on Scripture. The RC depends on human tradition.


There is indeed a hurdle in reaching God's truth. But it's not for the one depending on God's word.

historian said:

---

1600 years of tradition go not trump scripture

Again, there is no reason to believe anything that contradicts the plain words of scripture. God's word is the ultimate authority. Tradition was invented by men: imperfect, fallible, sinners. They are the opposite of God.

---

Youre clearly misunderstanding. You believe youve stumbled on something that 2 millenia of people just didn't understand until you poped it yourself.

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian depends on Scripture. The RC depends on human tradition.


There is indeed a hurdle in reaching God's truth. But it's not for the one depending on God's word.

---

Lies

You are raising your hand as a Helvidianist heretic and dont even realize it. A solo script tourist. Choosing your own adventure.

Wrong again. I haven't stumbled on anything. I read God's word and accept it at face value. I don't need anyone to tell me that it means something other than what it says regardless who they are or how long they have been doing it. God is still God.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian depends on Scripture. The RC depends on human tradition.


There is indeed a hurdle in reaching God's truth. But it's not for the one depending on God's word.

---

Lies

You are raising your hand as a Helvidianist heretic and dont even realize it. A solo script tourist. Choosing your own adventure.

---

You seriously think trusting Scripture to mean what it says is 'lying'?

Wow. Just wow.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian depends on Scripture. The RC depends on human tradition.


There is indeed a hurdle in reaching God's truth. But it's not for the one depending on God's word.

---

Lies

You are raising your hand as a Helvidianist heretic and dont even realize it. A solo script tourist. Choosing your own adventure.

---

And may the room note that Fre3dombear is once again falling back on false accusations.

Not Christian behavior as I know it, but maybe hypocrisy is tolerated in Rome?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian depends on Scripture. The RC depends on human tradition.


There is indeed a hurdle in reaching God's truth. But it's not for the one depending on God's word.

---

Lies

You are raising your hand as a Helvidianist heretic and dont even realize it. A solo script tourist. Choosing your own adventure.

---

You seriously think trusting Scripture to mean what it says is 'lying'?

Wow. Just wow.

---

Your understanding is the issue. And lacking it would appear. But with effort and study that can be overcome sin duda

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian depends on Scripture. The RC depends on human tradition.


There is indeed a hurdle in reaching God's truth. But it's not for the one depending on God's word.

---

Lies

You are raising your hand as a Helvidianist heretic and dont even realize it. A solo script tourist. Choosing your own adventure.

---

And may the room note that Fre3dombear is once again falling back on false accusations.

Not Christian behavior as I know it, but maybe hypocrisy is tolerated in Rome?

---

You are a just judge in your mind but a judge no less. Careful. Very un-Christian and prideful

Please defend you are not a Helvidian heretic. Show your work. Your mindset existed over 1000 years before your faith came into existence.

The founders of your faith were not even Helvidian heretics best we can tell from available writings and knowledge.

I do not answer to people who make false accusations.

You need to search your heart, and confess your sins to your priest.

I believe Roman Catholics are Christians just as we Baptists, and so I am sure your parish priest will set you right, if you are honest with him and turn back from your sin.

As for me, I seek God's word daily and take strength and confidence in Scripture, by which the Holy Spirit speaks to us all.

Do not depend on man, but on the word of God which does not fail.

This is such a ridiculous idea.

In the Jewish tradition, it was seen by many as sinful to refuse to consummate a marriage. In fact, the Jewish tradition was that marriage was a 2 state event... the legal betrothed and then consumation completed it. So without consummation it was not actually considered a marriage.

If Mary & Joseph ate to have so drastically departed from Jewish traditions, you actually think that the Holy Spirit would have never addressed this topic in the scriptures?
That is a foolish idea. Whenever Christ did anything that violated the human Jewish traditions, it is described & explained in detail in the scriptures.
And yet this would have been seen as a violation of the original garden of eden command from God Himself to be fruitful & multiple... and yet the RCC says that the Holy Spirit forgot to mention it in the scriptures. Pathetic.

It's really sad that the RCC continues to promote this nonsense when it all originated from the protoevangelium of James, which was proven to be a false gospel full of false facts and false doctrines. Even some of the early Popes admitted that the book was a lie, but they wouldn't give up the Marian dogmas which originated from the false book and are in direct opposition to the known scriptures.

Are you saying the Book of James has false doctrines and does not belong in the NT? I've never seen anything of the kind and I've studied it multiple times. It is sometimes misunderstood but that's true of much of the Bible.

historian said:

---

Are you saying the Book of James has false doctrines and does not belong in the NT? I've never seen anything of the kind and I've studied it multiple times. It is sometimes misunderstood but that's true of much of the Bible.

---

Different book.

ShooterTX said:

---

So without consummation it was not actually considered a marriage.

---

Now you're getting it.

The Protoevangelium of James isn't a false gospel. It's a fictionalized re-telling, similar to Jewish midrashim, emphasizing certain theological truths. It's also, at least incidentally, a record of historical custom and practice.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that must be the case.

ShooterTX said:

---

This is such a ridiculous idea.

In the Jewish tradition, it was seen by many as sinful to refuse to consummate a marriage. In fact, the Jewish tradition was that marriage was a 2 state event... the legal betrothed and then consumation completed it. So without consummation it was not actually considered a marriage.

If Mary & Joseph ate to have so drastically departed from Jewish traditions, you actually think that the Holy Spirit would have never addressed this topic in the scriptures?
That is a foolish idea. Whenever Christ did anything that violated the human Jewish traditions, it is described & explained in detail in the scriptures.
And yet this would have been seen as a violation of the original garden of eden command from God Himself to be fruitful & multiple... and yet the RCC says that the Holy Spirit forgot to mention it in the scriptures. Pathetic.

It's really sad that the RCC continues to promote this nonsense when it all originated from the protoevangelium of James, which was proven to be a false gospel full of false facts and false doctrines. Even some of the early Popes admitted that the book was a lie, but they wouldn't give up the Marian dogmas which originated from the false book and are in direct opposition to the known scriptures.

---

A misinformed perspective. Where do y'all get this stuff?