Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you ever asked others to pray for you? Have you ever prayed for others?
Everybody is entitled to their own belief and you are entitled to believe what you wish. But have you ever wondered why Protestantism -- a horribly disunified lot -- is so unified on this point? All of Protestantism universally agrees that praying to saints and to Mary has evolved into outright worship. Fine and well to say that Mary and saints are not worshipped by Catholics but any impartial observer would call BS on that notion. Just because Zeus was universally believed to be the highest of the Greek gods does not mean that the Greeks were not worshipping the rest of their gods.
I think that in the process of time, the ancient Church absorbed many persistently polytheistic pagan faiths. I think old habits die hard. I think that Mary and other saints were turned into demigods just out of habit. Important figures in ancient Christianity were just gradually elevated to superhuman status because that's how pagans thought it should be. Much like the practice of celibacy, there is no evidence of praying to saints and praying to Mary in the early Church. It's just a popular practice that evolved over time.
God is merciful and I don't think anyone will burn in hell for all eternity over the matter. I do wonder if and when the RCC will acknowledge and correct the bigger problem. The RCC has clearly gone the way of ancient Judaism: They've piled up an endless number of traditions. Traditions that outright contradict scripture. Useless traditions that don't actually help strengthen our faith in God and Jesus Christ. When will they acknowledge made-up human traditions for what they are?
very little is written in the bible about joseph, so we are left to do some guessing and interpreting. He was apparently nowhere to be found around the time of the crucifixion. That he is presumed to have passed sometime before the cricifixion could lead one to believe that he was a good deal older than mary, which would also fuel speculation that the reported siblings were step. And if joseph was an older man, he may have been less inclined to have sought a sexual relation. As for the use of the term firstborn in some english bibles, could be one of those translation issues. In short, the idea that mary was a perpetual virgin is not totally outlandish.
2 + 2 = 1000. This only makes sense if you start out with absolute certainty of the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity. There is no mention of anything remotely resembling the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary in the Bible. Do you really think that the New Testament writers would have completely missed something that important if it were true? There is significant evidence that Jesus did in fact have siblings and that Joseph and Mary did in fact have a sexual relationship as husband and wife. There is zero evidence of the immaculate conception. The RCC must of necessity ignore all the evidence to continue to teaching this doctrine.
But seriously, why do you believe that the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary were even necessary?
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 12-28-2013 at 02:17 PM..
With regard to whether or not James was a brother or cousin to Jesus, we actually have a second source for this. In "Antiquities" Josephus reports on the 62 CE stoning to death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."
Scholars have embraced the passage as authentic, there is no translation controversy.
.
Man it told to beware of lie deceptions traditions of men, ! ! !
Col:2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
2Tm:3:1: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2: For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3: Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4: Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6: For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women
laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 + 2 = 1000. This only makes sense if you start out with absolute certainty of the immaculate conception. There is no mention of anything remotely resembling the immaculate conception of Mary in the Bible. Do you really think that the New Testament writers would have completely missed it if it was true? There is significant evidence that Jesus did in fact have siblings and that Joseph and Mary did in fact have a sexual relationship as husband and wife. There is zero evidence of the immaculate conception. The RCC must of necessity ignore all the evidence to continue to teaching this doctrine.
But seriously, why do you believe that the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary were even necessary?
RESPONSE:
When a dogma is invented it frequently is necessary to invent a second dogma to cover shortcomings in the first.
So when Augustine, working from an inaccurate translation of Romans, concluded that we all participated in Adam's sin via the "in quo" or stain doctrine which was heredity, there had to be a way to keep Jesus sinless. Voila, making his mother sinless filled the bill.
Jesus' mother having been a virgin came from a erroneous translation of Is 7:14 which Matthew used. The word was not virgin (Greek Parthenos" but rather "almah' or young women (in Hebrew).
Just why Mary had to remain virgin is unclear, but apparently virgins were more worthy than ordinary women. Of course a lot of famous individuals and gods were claimed to have been born of virgins at that time.
.
Man it told to beware of lie deceptions traditions of men, ! ! !
Col:2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
2Tm:3:1: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2: For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3: Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4: Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6: For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women
laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
.
RESPONSE:
Wasn't that written by Paul, the great deceiver, considered an apostate by the early Christians (see Ebionites) when Paul claimed that Jesus had made him an Apostle, and that his gospel was the only correct one, and he had received it in a series of revelations and visions. And any other Gospel that contradicted his was wrong?
Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-28-2013 at 02:34 PM..
Reason: typo
I do wonder if and when the RCC will acknowledge and correct the bigger problem. The RCC has clearly gone the way of ancient Judaism: They've piled up an endless number of traditions. Traditions that outright contradict scripture. Useless traditions that don't actually help strengthen our faith in God and Jesus Christ.
You're asking for the impossible. One of the key differences between Roman Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity is the belief that God presents himself not only through scripture, but through traditions as well. And it's not for you to say that those traditions do nothing to strengthen others' faith in God. It may do nothing for you, but you can't say that for others.
Wasn't that written by Paul, the great deceiver, considered an apostate by the early Christians (see Ebionites) when Paul claimed that Jesus had made him an Apostle, and that his gospel was the only correct one, and he had received it in a series of revelations and visions. And any other Gospel that contradicted his was wrong?
Those lies I made bold and underlined are not found in the bible ! ! !
More man made lies comming from the devil the father of all lies ! ! !
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
