Mother of James?

[BreadOfLife]

Vatican City is in Rome. Either way, you accept the pope as the vicar of Christ, thus, whatever church that you accept as Christ-ordained is axiomatically heretical.

Soooo, judging by YOUR standards -
Lutherans are Germans?
Calvinists are Swiss?
Episcopalians and Anglicans are British?

The scary part is that you can't see how asinine your twisted logic is - because you twist your logic as you do the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).
According to the Holy Spirit, speaking through Peter - this is what the ignorant and unstable do.

The Church is in Rome because that's where Peter and Paul went to establish it.
This is what the Early Church had to day about it - YOUR obejections, notwithstanding . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who decided which are in yours? It might give me a clue as to what you're on about.

The very SAME Church that Jesus established - and the SAME Church that decided on the New Testament Canon that YOU adhere to.
Hire's a little history lesson on how this came about . . .

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.

- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).

- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.

- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.

- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

Forgive me for stepping on your toes, @Marymog - but I couldn't resist . . .

 

[Nancy]

Where does the Bible tell you that the BIBLE is your "Sole" Authority - because MY Bible tells me that Christ's CHURCH is our final earthly Authority (Matt.16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

You wouldn't say that God's WORD is the final authority, fine. Man is fallible so, thanks but no thanks. I prefer to be taught scripture, not mans rituals and traditions. And, a priest is no different than a pastor in that they BOTH interpret scripture. At least in a protestant church, they actually TEACH!

 

[DNB]

Soooo, judging by YOUR standards -
Lutherans are Germans?
Calvinists are Swiss?
Episcopalians and Anglicans are British?

The scary part is that you can't see how asinine your twisted logic is - because you twist your logic as you do the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).
According to the Holy Spirit, speaking through Peter - this is what the ignorant and unstable do.

The Church is in Rome because that's where Peter and Paul went to establish it.
This is what the Early Church had to day about it - YOUR obejections, notwithstanding . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

BOL, for crying out load, all but one of your quotes mentioned Rome, and so you undermined your own argument - "...I am not part of the Roman Church, but the Christ Church.."
Clearly all these theologians that you cited are, in their opinion, expressing the affinity with Rome and the Sacred Church. I consider this to be absolute nonsense - for what has Jerusalem (either the old or the one to be) to do with Rome???
When Luther arrived there for the first time, he found it to be a den of vices and corruption. Again, the true Church of Christ is hidden, it is comprised of not only many protestants , but many Catholic and Eastern, and whatever else there may be. But, I say this on an individual level, never at the congregational or denominational level.
You should extricate yourself from the bondage of dividing one church over another. For, like I said, I am non-denominational - no appellation comes before Christ's.

 

[Illuminator]

You wouldn't say that God's WORD is the final authority, fine.

God's WORD, written or oral, doesn't say that either.

Man is fallible so, thanks but no thanks. I prefer to be taught scripture, not mans rituals and traditions.

Yes, man alone is fallible, so by your own admission, you are fallible, therefore you cannot claim that what scripture teaches you directly is infallible, or you contradict yourself.
Nowhere does the Bible pit authentic rituals (that Jesus sanctified) against scripture, and nowhere is scripture pitted against the Church. These are man made traditions that should be included in your condemnation of tradition.
Bible Alone theology blocks the mind from understanding what Tradition and infallibility means, no matter how it is explained. The straw man fallacies and excuses are endless.
TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

Yes, pastors and priests teach. The difference is that pastors are subject to the committee that hired them and usually adhere to a particular statement of faith within a particular denomination, or they may make guest appearances to a non-denominational bible club. Priests, on the other hand, can teach whatever they like, as long as it does not conflict or contradict a massive amount of authentic teaching, that has developed over time, and has never changed the core truths.

 

[Illuminator]

It was in reply to my referencing Mat. 13:55, and Mk. 6:3, not Jn. 19:25, and saying Simon, Joseph, James, Judas are not Jesus's brothers, as in "a male from the same womb", that you claimed the issue is inconclusive either way, because Scripture "does not offer enough details" (see posts #268, #277), which contradicted your claim those verses "clearly state" they are (see post #284). That is why I instructed you to pick a lane, and you chose to stick with "Scripture clearly states" your position.



Who are "all scholars"?

Now, in order to be speculating, I would have to assume x is true without sufficient evidence. What either of us consider "sufficient" may be subjective, but I have presented actual evidence in the form of strong scriptural supporting verses, quotes from theologians alive shortly after the events in Scripture, and an etymological explanation for the original word, which has been translated into English as "brother" (ἀδελφός, Adelphos), in its proper context for how it was used at the time, as well as in the Bible verses I referenced (see post #261).

All you have done, thus far, is make spurious claims that have no weight behind them, or any proof, other than to say "Scripture clearly states my position". Anyone can do that. Therefore, your homework is to present actual evidence of the following: (i) that I eisegeted the word ἀδελφός (Adelphos), which has been translated into English as "brother", and (ii) that those at the Synagogue in Nazareth targeted Jesus's family in order to "deprecate His pedigree in order to challenge His authority", and they could only have been immediate family, because extended family, e.g., cousins, "does not bear the same weight". Until you do this, your position remains as it stands: pure speculation presented as fact.

Like any word that has multiple commonly used meanings, the word ἀδελφός (Adelphos), does not primarily mean "a male from the same womb". Another common meaning is "a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity". However, it means what it means depending on the context of its usage.

(Adelphos), primarily means "a male from the same womb" when it suits an agenda, started by modernist liberals in the mid 18th century. It was not a reformist issue. Every Protestant church on the planet accepted the PVM before that, so clearly Jesus' biological "brothers" is a man made tradition, especially in light of its late arrival.

 

[DNB]

It was in reply to my referencing Mat. 13:55, and Mk. 6:3, not Jn. 19:25, and saying Simon, Joseph, James, Judas are not Jesus's brothers, as in "a male from the same womb", that you claimed the issue is inconclusive either way, because Scripture "does not offer enough details" (see posts #268, #277), which contradicted your claim those verses "clearly state" they are (see post #284). That is why I instructed you to pick a lane, and you chose to stick with "Scripture clearly states" your position.



Who are "all scholars"?

Now, in order to be speculating, I would have to assume x is true without sufficient evidence. What either of us consider "sufficient" may be subjective, but I have presented actual evidence in the form of strong scriptural supporting verses, quotes from theologians alive shortly after the events in Scripture, and an etymological explanation for the original word, which has been translated into English as "brother" (ἀδελφός, Adelphos), in its proper context for how it was used at the time, as well as in the Bible verses I referenced (see post #261).

All you have done, thus far, is make spurious claims that have no weight behind them, or any proof, other than to say "Scripture clearly states my position". Anyone can do that. Therefore, your homework is to present actual evidence of the following: (i) that I eisegeted the word ἀδελφός (Adelphos), which has been translated into English as "brother", and (ii) that those in the Synagogue in Nazareth targeted Jesus's family in order to "deprecate His pedigree in order to challenge His authority", and they could only have been immediate family, because extended family, e.g., cousins, "does not bear the same weight". Until you do this, your position remains as it stands: pure speculation presented as fact.



Like any word that has multiple commonly used meanings, the word ἀδελφός (Adelphos), does not primarily mean "a male from the same womb". Another common meaning is "a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity". However, it means what it means depending on the context of its usage.

Everywhere that I looked, Adelphos primary meaning is brother from at least one of the two parents.
Plus, and finally, let me see you prove Mary's perpetual virginity. Enough digressions, even if all your evidence was conceded to you, you still have not proven that she was chaste all her life, i.e. that she did not bear children outside of the ones mentioned in the Bible.
And, manipulating the word 'until', just does not cut it on any level, whatsoever.

 

[Pearl]

The very SAME Church that Jesus established - and the SAME Church that decided on the New Testament Canon that YOU adhere to.
Hire's a little history lesson on how this came about . . .

The one true Church was established by Jesus. The Catholic church was established my Constantine. I belong to the one true church.

I didn't read the rest of your post as it was too bold and too red - shouty in fact.

 

[Pearl]

That does not answer the question. Again, do you know who decided which books are in your Bible?

Oh well end of then. I have answered but you want to make an argument so good luck with that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You wouldn't say that God's WORD is the final authority, fine. Man is fallible so, thanks but no thanks. I prefer to be taught scripture, not mans rituals and traditions. And, a priest is no different than a pastor in that they BOTH interpret scripture. At least in a protestant church, they actually TEACH!

God's WORD states explicitly that His CHURCH is the final Earthly Authority.
Since you don't seem to understand what Christ's Church is - allow me to remind you what God's WORD says about it . . .

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).
- The CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of that Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
- The CHURCH is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).
- Jesus promised His CHURCH that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).
- Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER THEY bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).
- The CHURCH is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His CHURCH (Acts 9:4-5).

As you can see from God's WORD - His Church is MUCH more than just the people that comprise it - but it is CHRIST Himself.
YOUR rejection of this Biblical fact is a rejection of CHRIST . . .

 

[Pearl]

You replied to the question with a question that does not answer the former. Now you have made an assumption about me, which you are using as an excuse to avoid answering. Do you not know who decided which books are in your Bible?

Round and round the mulberry bush on a cold and frosty morning . . . . .

Time to move on

 

[BreadOfLife]

The one true Church was established by Jesus. The Catholic church was established my Constantine. I belong to the one true church.

I didn't read the rest of your post as it was too bold and too red - shouty in fact.

This is my FAVORITE anti-Cathoolic lie because it is soooooooo easily debunked.

- Ummmmmmm, where is the official Roman edict from Constantine that created the Catholic Church?
- Where are the historical documents and data?
- WHY is it that we read about "The Catholic Church" from the early Church Fathers like Ignatius of antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian - ALL whom describe the hierarchy (Bishops, Priests, Deacons), the Eucharist, Confession, Infant Baptism, etc - PRIOR to constantine

As for YOUR sect - it dodn't come about until AFTER the 16th century - and it was estalished by MEN - not Christ.
So, let's face it - you didn't read all of my last post because you reject the facts of history . . .

 

[Nancy]

When people use a lot of bold print in their posts and large text and different colours it seems like they are shouting at you and I never read such posts as they even look threatening. You think I'm exposed? Well aren't we all on here; exposing ourselves to other people's criticism and judgment. Be blessed.

It is anger and self righteousness. Just like the Pharisees thought they had it all down pat...hahaha.

Round and round the mulberry bush on a cold and frosty morning . . . . .

Time to move on

Yes Pat,
Been down this angry hateful self-righteousness road WAY too many times. Pharisees IMHO. Time to put several on ignore as they are unkind and totally lacking love. Never a kind word, ALWAYS finger-pointing, putting others down, and think they are the ONLY ones who will be saved.
Don't waste your "Pearls" Pearl..lol.
xx

 

[Nancy]

Or, do you know who decided which books are in your Bible, but are ashamed to say?

God decided what should be in there...humans were just His instrument. If it's in there, then it's because GOD wanted it to be.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL, for crying out load, all but one of your quotes mentioned Rome, and so you undermined your own argument - "...I am not part of the Roman Church, but the Christ Church.."
Clearly all these theologians that you cited are, in their opinion, expressing the affinity with Rome and the Sacred Church. I consider this to be absolute nonsense - for what has Jerusalem (either the old or the one to be) to do with Rome???
When Luther arrived there for the first time, he found it to be a den of vices and corruption. Again, the true Church of Christ is hidden, it is comprised of not only many protestants , but many Catholic and Eastern, and whatever else there may be. But, I say this on an individual level, never at the congregational or denominational level.
You should extricate yourself from the bondage of dividing one church over another. For, like I said, I am non-denominational - no appellation comes before Christ's.

THANK YOU for once again illustrating your counterfeit beliefs.
Christ's Church is NOT to be "hidden".

According to Christ Himself:
Matt. 5:14-16
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill CANNOT BE HIDDEN. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may SEE your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

That's why I LOVE debating you - because you expose your own ignorance of God and His Word.
It makes MY job that much easier . . .

 

[Pearl]

It is anger and self righteousness. Just like the Pharisees thought they had it all down pat...hahaha.

Yes Pat,
Been down this angry hateful self-righteousness road WAY too many times. Pharisees IMHO. Time to put several on ignore as they are unkind and totally lacking love. Never a kind word, ALWAYS finger-pointing, putting others down, and think they are the ONLY ones who will be saved.
Don't waste your "Pearls" Pearl..lol.
xx

I agree Nancy, no love in their hearts. And I though of the thing about 'pearls' but thought it might be unkind so didn't say it. I'm glad you did though.

 

[Pearl]

I agree. Who were the human instruments that decided which books are in your Bible?

You're like a dog playing fetch, only you're like our dog and won't drop it.

 

[Nancy]

THANK YOU for once again illustrating your counterfeit beliefs.
Christ's Church is NOT to be "hidden".

According to Christ Himself:
Matt. 5:14-16
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill CANNOT BE HIDDEN. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may SEE your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

That's why I LOVE debating you - because you expose your own ignorance of God and His Word.
It makes MY job that much easier . . .

Might be time to look for another "job". Have not seen one single person become converted to Catholicism through your nastiness. I will be putting you and the others on ignore because you cause way too much division and, you are bereft of love.

 

[Pearl]

Or, do you know who decided which books are in your Bible, but are ashamed to say?

I'm not ashamed. I have reason to be. Shame on you for your wrong attitude.

 

[Pearl]

Might be time to look for another "job". Have not seen one single person become converted to Catholicism through your nastiness. I will be putting you and the others on ignore because you cause way too much division and, you are bereft of love.

Good idea Nancy.