I have always had to argue this with other religions, especially protestants who are solo scriptura (might i add that the chruch picks and chooses which books they recognize, based on whether or not it disproves their religion). I believe what I believe in, I dont try forcing it on you, so if I am damned for believing in the Immaculate Conception, then so be it, because God chose Mary to carry his only son and to me thats something special.
@JimmyCarol100 This person is confusing ppl sayn there's no hebrew/aramaic word for relatives, New Testaments written n greek. Luke 1:36 uses cousin=G4773-syggenes when refering to Elizabeth as Mary's cousin. It's a lie to say there's no words for relatives bcoz sometimes it depends on how much info is given as to how close people are related, example Leviticus 18 tells of uncovering nakedness of mothers, fathers, sis, bro, aunts, uncles, in-laws, by telln who's the nearest kin. continued
@JimmyCarol100 Also do people not think that Mark 6:3 is Jesus home town would not know who His siblings were, not to mention n verse 4 Jesus says that a prophet is only without honor in his own country, among his own kin and own house. So when He says own house we know He does'nt mean His mother bcoz she knew the truth from the start, the rest caught on later. Jesus is GOD n flesh and chose John to take care of His mother coz John was the only one at the cross, the rest were afraid. Peace
Poor Mary. So you don't want her to have children of her own in the natural way. Would you still pray to/through her if she did? The need to make Mary an Ever-Virgin is more sad than anything else. It is your desire that prompts this doctrine not any valid reason in the world.
I been a catholic for 5 years. I know too, just sorry that you can't see the truth. Go ahead and bow down to statues, and still deny that you are worshiping idols. You can't tell me what I saw with my own eyes. I just hope Jesus opens your eyes one day, I can't do that for you. God bless.
@wasnt4me You have failed completely in proving your ridiculous point. Show me anywhwere that the Church teaches Mary worship. shown us where it says place Mary on equal footing with God. you can't because it doesn't. If you've been Catholic for 5 years, start going to Mass and let me know where the Mary worship fits in to the Missal. And which Idols are you talking about. Do you really know what an Idol is? You have no clue what you are talking about. What about the CCC? You blew it!
This video, like all in this series, argues its point well. In this case, however, I think there is a larger issue being sidestepped... WHY do Catholics believe that Mary, a married woman, remained a virgin? Is that following the biblical example of a good wife?
Look at it this way: You've just been hailed by Gods Angels, Found 2 be Highly Favorable in Gods eyes, & you have just been told that you will be pregnant by The Holy Spirit.
The day comes & out of YOUR WOMB, comes THE SON OF GOD. let that sink in.
If you were living a favorable virgin life before, why would you live any different after?
As we know, when we come together, we become ONE. Mary became one with The Spirit.
One question: How does rejecting Mary Honor Her Son Jesus?
@luisluv65 - No problem! I don't think it's a matter of "honoring Jesus: by our disagreement; I think it's just a matter of perspective. For one thing, I no longer consider virginity a virtue once someone is married. There seems to be an anti-sex bias involved in the belief; I could be wrong about that.
@TheSacredHeart2- May Jesus bless you. I will not argue with you, nor lower my level of respect toward God's wonderful creation. Calling me names..... I love you and pray for Jesus's creation. I used to be a catholic, until I learned the truth of the Spanish Inquisition. The time of Christ's return draweth nigh, repent and do some research. May Christ open your spiritual eyes if that's his will.
Another lie from Satan. May was not a perpetual virgin. After the birth of Jesus she maintained a normal sexual relationship with Joseph in the covenant of marriage. Scripture is quite clear that Joseph did not know her until she brought forth her first born son.
I am thankful for these comments. It helps me learn & realize how blind people really are who believe in Mary. 1978dagreat is right, Jesus rejects people blessing Mary because he is our true mediator & intercessor(1Tim.2:5-6; Heb.7:25). Catholics don't pay attention to scripture for if they did, they would know there is only ONE way to heaven(John14:6;Acts4:12). Greek is precise language. It makes a clear distinction between words used to describe family relationships.
@wasnt4me I'm thankful for your comment because it shows what a disgusting liar and fraud you are. You hate Jesus and you deny him to His face. You are a dumb fool who puts your faith only in yourself.
Before I continue my reflections on this issue, I must say that I have a strong conviction for a huge possibility for those Brothers and Sisters mentioned in Matthew 13:55-58 can be Joseph's sons and daughters, this is a strong possibility instead to be only their relatives, so let's read these verses.
These are some words from my last post. If you want to read more, google "The Perfume of GOD" quotation included.
"And it came to pass as HE spake these things a certain woman of the company LIFTED up her voice & said unto him *Blessed* is the WOMB that BARE THEE & the PAPS which thou hast sucked. **BUT HE SAID** Yea RATHER, BLESSED are THEY that HEAR the WORD OF GOD & KEEP IT!!!
You think this is enough?....not quite, GOD does it again in Matt 12:46-50
With the testimony of 2 men...let that word be established. John 8:17 = Matthew & Luke
@1978dagreat - Great job proving a great point. Too bad that catholics are trying to hide this info from others. Luke 11:27 & 28 and Matt. 12:46-50 shows that Jesus Rebukes Mary worship. The testimony of 2 witnesses is a very great comment (John 8:17). Jesus is our true mediator (1Tim.2:5-6; Heb.7:25). There is only one way to heaven (John14:6; Acts4:12). I hope Jesus opens your eyes to truth.
@wasnt4me In somewhat typical Prot. fashion, you misrepresent the difference between worship and devotion. Catholics do not worship Mary. Period. And PLEASE look up the difference in "mediator" and "intercessor."
@kingsmen711- I don't need to tell you the difference between Mediator and Intercessor when Jesus already tells us what that is. Did you even take the time to read scripture given by not just me, but others as well? I'm sorry, but I can't really focus on feeble comments when the answer is right in front of you. All I am saying is that people are making Mary into someone she's not. May god bless you.
@wasnt4me Look, you flat out made the accusation that Catholics worship Mary. Your'e either dead wrong or lying on purpose. Where in Catholic Doctrine does it even remotely suggest that we "worship" Mary. With over 30,000 seperate denominations of Protestantism in the world, and no singular doctrine. No wonder Prots. are all over the map. 30,000 denominations and none of them can agree. What are Catholics making Mary out to be?
@kingsmen711 Ok, I will give you my opinion on this matter since you asked. 1)Mother of the Church (Catechism 963,975); Co Mediator (Cat. 968-970, 2677); Queen of Heaven (Cat. 966, 971, 2675... Funny how god mentions this in Jer. 7:18, very similar); Rosary & Vain repetitions such as the The Salve Regina or Fatima Prayer. These are all CLEAR forms of Mary Worship. All glory God will not give to another (Isa. 42:8). The LORD Jesus Christ get's all the glory. Peace.
@wasnt4me It is easy for one to "look something up", quite a different story to understand what you have read. Mt.6:5-8 clearly addresses the VANITY of repetative prayers in public in order to lead others to think that you are a rightous person. We are implored to "close the door" and pray to our Father in secret. Your logic is that we should only recite the Lord's Prayer once in order to prevent us from being vain hyppocrites. (cont.)
@wasnt4me (cont.) During His agony in Gethsemane, Christ prayed " My Father,if it is not possible that this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done." He prayed this not once, but three times while in the garden. Praying with a sincere and contrite heart is what matters, not the ridiculous notion that reciting a prayer many times is wrong. Praying with a prideful heart and to try and attract attention to ones self is exactly what Christ admonishes us for doing.
@wasnt4me At the risk of sounding a bit cynical, I must say that your citing of the Catholic Catechism absolutely and without question refutes everything you are trying to prove. In every single one of the sections you listed there is not one single reference to the worship of Mary. Not one. What is written is wording such as devotion, honor, INTERCESSOR (look up the meaning!),advocate, helper, benefactress, mediatrix. Do you even know the purpose of reciting the Rosary? I think not.
@wasnt4me And please remember one very simple rule when arguing with a knowledgable Catholic from a position outside the faith. It should go something like this... Ready!, Aim!, Fire! It should NOT go like you have insisted.... Ready!, Fire!, Aim! Please bear that in mind. You need to contextualize as opposed to being a literalist.
It is you that take Acts 1 out of context. 13,14-specifies people who where present. 15 THEN speaks of the others-it's an account of Peter appointing Matthias (who was also not mentioned by name in the previous passage). Luke 11:27 a woman yells out "blessed is the womb that bore You.." and Jesus answeres "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
The first flaw in the video is that it tells us that there was no ancient Hebrew word for cousin. This may be true, but the issue in question arisis in the New Testament, which was written in GREEK.
The Greek word for cousin is συγγενής suggenes, which means a relative, kinsman, or fellow countryman.
This is a different word than ἀδελφός adelphos (brother) or ἀδελφή adelphe (sister)
The Original New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. The language that was spoken was the language that was written. Dont confuse Aramaic or Hebrew with Greek just to prove your own preconcieved points.
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
You don't even have to finish the first chapter of the New Testament to see that mary was not a perpetual virgin.
"But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son."
And what in the above verse tells us that the marriage was consumed after the birth ?
Applying your interpretation to the very last verse in the same Gospel Matt 28:20 "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." - that should mean that Jesus is not going to be with us after the end of time. Correct ? Please explain.
anepsios is the greek for cousin. Paul uses Adelphos for James and he knew both Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and probably Latin. Don't you think he would have the term relative or cousin if there was no relation. This is a doctrine that is not necessary for salvation.
The N/T was translated into greek and they have specific words for Actual blood relative and cousin.Mark 6:3-4 these were his literal brothers and sisters because the word for brother is "Adelphos" literal blood relative. The word for Cousin is " Anepsios" not used here. So Jesus had literal brothers and sisters according to the bible, this refutes Rome's teaching that Mary remained a perpetual virgin all her life. Romes false doctrines are exposed by the truth of Scripture amen
You say the Aramaic did not have a word for cousin etc. Well, how come in Luke 1;36 it says "And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth..." ? Where did the word cousin come from ?
Mark 6:3 is clearly refuted FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF, Mary the Mother of James, Joses, etc., is ANOTHER Mary, who is the Mary WIFE OF CLOPAS, Mark 15:40, also COMPARE Matthew 13:55 to Matthew 27:56, and John 19:25. SHAME ON YOU, and your IGNORANCE and BLASPHEMY. And SHAME on the Many "BIBLE ONLY" Christians, who DON'T Read the Bible. This is refuted from the BIBLE ITSELF.
I personally think that Mary was most likely not a lifelong virgin. And the way it reads in the Bible, it nicely fits to say that she did have other children. There wouldn't be much issue over her virginity if the Catholic church had not added that ideology as doctrine. The Church Fathers differed in many ideologies, but they did not have the power to declare anything as doctrine, and the earliest ones like Clement admitted that.
I would suggest you talk to a scholar about it. i'm away from school, thus the weath of bible commentaries and dictionaries, so i can't properly cite anything. But let me ask you this, the old testament details many rights and duties/traditions of "firstborns". For example, before the Apostasy at Sinai, all firstborn males were to be consecrated as priests AT THEIR BIRTH. How could this be if 'firstborn' required more than one child? By your logic, they would have to wait for a second child...
@dblazek08, There is no such thing as what you say that firstborn male Jews must be consecrated as priests at their birth. If you are so sure there is, then please quote the exact book, chapter and verse where you found it said that. Otherwise it just another catholic "smokescreen" man-made teaching, to confuse the poor catholic followers from understanding their bible, so that they continue to rely on their also ignorant priests.
@opsvideo2008 Im just going to stop this conversation right here. Its obvious you have not read the old testament and actually you dont know HOW to read it. See you keep expecting every belief to be contained in one simple verse. I coundnt possible contain the Old Testament priesthood into one verse. Wantin it to be contained in one simple verse is like asking for the Nature of God to be summarized in one verse. Its not there and it cannot be done. The bible is a story. Read it as such.
@dblazek08, I am not asking you to quote only one bible verse to prove your assertion that the firstborn male Jew is required to be consecrated as a priest. If what you say is true, at least quote which book in the bible and the chapters which say that so that what you say have a basis. Ohterwise how can you make any claims of the bible to be true when you don't even know where to find it in the first place? It appears like only hearsay.
@opsvideo2008 Exodus chapter 13 is in rearguards to the consecration of the firstborn. Not to mention the only people in the Old testament ever seen offering sacrifices or building alters are Firstborns
@dblazek08, It is good of you to post Exodus chapter 13, as the basis of your point. Let me read it first to thoroughly understand the context and also do some research before I reply you later on this matter.
@opsvideo2008, In Exodus 13:2, the word "firstborn" is used as a noun as in " Consecrate to Me all the first-born, whatever opens the womb...." Here it means " the child in a family who is born first. " The word first as used in this context means "never having happened before " for the mother, meaning the baby is her " firstborn ", her first experience giving birth to a baby, even if she is never going to have a 2nd baby.
@dblazek08, Here is the explaination for the word "firstborn" being used in Matthew 1:25, where it mentioned Mary brought forth her firstborn Son, Jesus and in Exodus 13:2 where God told Moses to consecrate to Him all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, it belongs to Him. There is no error and no contradiction whatsoever in both these verses. Please see my next post.
@dblazek08, The Oxford dictionary lists two meanings for the word " first "...(1) 1st, coming before all others in time, order and importance.....(2) never having happened or been experienced before...(meaning for the first time ). From the American Heritage Dictionary, the word " firstborn" also has two meanings......(1) when used as an adjective, it means " first in order of birth; born first " (cont'd next comment)
@dblazek08....(2) when used as a noun, it means " the child in a family who is born first ". In Matthew 1:25, the word " firstborn" is used as an adjective as in " Mary brought forth her firstborn Son, Jesus " which means Jesus was first in order of birth before his other brothers and sisters. The word "first" used in the word "firstborn " here takes the meaning of 1st, coming BEFORE ALL OTHERS in time, order and importance. (cont'd)..
@dblazek08, You can verify all the definitons that I have given you that is both in the Oxford and The American Heritage Dictionary. The English language is a very rich and precise language which the bible scholars were full aware of the different meanings of a particular word and its usage. The real word of God is perfect and never contradicts itself because it is the Holy Spirit who guided the chosen scholars in its translation.
@dblazek08, In conclusion, Matthew 1:25 means what is says that Jesus was Mary's firstborn Son, meaning Mary had other children after Jesus was born. This fact was again confirmed by Mark 6:3, which tells us the brothers of Jesus were James, Joses, Judas and Simon. And the fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus did not remain a perpetual virgin, as what was erroneously taught by the catholic church.
@opsvideo2008 Here's the problem. The law of the firstborn's applied to all, reguardless of how many children the parents had. And even if the child had was an only child, he or she would still be called the firstborn. All that is meant by firstborn is the one who opened the womb. The word used for 'firstborn son' in Luke 2:7 is prototokos, but this is a mistranslation. Every single other use of any form of 'prototokos' in the bible simply translates to 'firstborn', used as a noun.
@dblazek08 In the Greek, the word used used for 'first-born' is a noun as well. it would be similar to, while referring to Michelle Obama, saying she is the 'First Lady'. While 'first', taken by itself is not a nouns, the phrase as a whole is a noun. Furthermore, the fact your argument relies on linguistics is weak. logically speaking, 'first-born' says only that there were no children before. the fact you take it to mean there were children after is only an assumption.
@dblazek08, When you have no more rebuttals to the evidence I presented to you, your final and only defence is to say the words were wrongly translated, in effect saying you are more knowledgable than the expert bible scholars who knew the Greek, Hebrew and English language intimately. Even your catholic Douay-Rheims bible (1582) agrees with the King James Version (1611).
@dblazek08, Based on your opinion, you say Matthew 1:25 should be interpreted as only "firstborn" and not "firstborn Son". I now challenge you to find me any English translated bible, which only shows the word "firstborn" as what you believed should be. There is NONE because it is just your own personal opinion which is WRONG. You might as well erroneously challenge your own catholic Douay-Rheims bible as wrong.
@opsvideo2008 these 'authorities' you are appealing to have no connection to ancient Judaism and the traditions of those cultures. The early Church Father's, however, did. And they, almost unanimously, agree that Mary was perpetually virgin. Some of them, those who offered commentary for the bible, specifically say that 'first-born' does not imply second and third. First born refers to Mosic tradition which says that a 'firstborn' is the one whom opens the womb.
@dblazek08, Yes, the bible defined in Exodus 13:2 that the firstborn (noun) is the child who opens the womb of the mother. No argument about that. It is Matthew 1:25 that says Mary gave birth to her FIRSTBORN SON, Jesus ("firstborn" here being used as an adjective) which tells us Jesus was the first of many sons, the definitive meaning as provided by the authority of both the Oxford and American Heritage dictionary.
@opsvideo2008 But the authority of the early church fathers, the ones responsible for the translation, preservation, and understanding of Scripture and who defended it and Christianity in general from the countless heresy of the time say otherwise. Like i said, just as 'First Lady' is a proper noun, so is 'Fisrt-born son'
@dblazek08, The English version of the bible was first translated in the 16th century and like I said earlier, even the catholic Douay-Rheims bible, translated in 1582 agrees with the Protestant King James Version on Matthew 1:25 where the words "firstborn Son " was used. You are also confusing the word " first" in "First Lady" with the bible word "firstborn" , which itself has 2 meanings, when used as a noun or an adjective.
@dblazek08, Like I explained earlier, the word "firstborn" is used as a noun in Exodus 13:2 , therefore its meaning is " the child in a family who is born first time in the family " the mother never having gave birth before. If your only defence is that the word "firstborn Son" was wrongly translated in Matthew 1:25, then it is a weak defence because even your catholic Douay-Rheims bible (1582) has it interpreted as "firstborn Son".
@dblazek08, The explaination I offer is not by my own authority but the authority of the Oxford and American Heritage dictionary on how the meanings of "firstborn" should be interpreted. You are offering your own interpretation and opinion, which contradicts what the world recognized authorities are saying. That is why you are not a bible scholar, otherwise you would be putting your own unsupported views into the your translations.
@dblazek08, @dblazek08, The other thing I noted is that you don't give enough credit to the many bible scholars who translated the bible to the English language. If ever anyone is an expert, they are the people with their knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew and the English language. It would be preposterous to even think they would make that kind of simple error, to use the word "firstborn" and not knowing its meaning.
That is why the people from Jesus' own country said this in Mark 6:3...."Is this not the carpenter (Jesus), the Son of Mary, AND THE BROTHER OF James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not His SISTERS here with us?"..." This verse together with Matthew 1:24-25 clearly tells us why Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin, because as a wife she had a sexual relationship with her husband and had children.
That is why the people from Jesus' own country said this in Mark 6:3...."Is this not the carpenter (Jesus), the Son of Mary, AND THE BROTHER OF James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not His SISTERS here with us?"..." This verse together with Matthew 1:24-25 clearly tells us why Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin, because as a wife she had a sexual relationship with her husband and had children.
Then Matthew 1: 24-25 tells us..." Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, AND DID NOT KNOW HER (meaning have sexual intercourse with her) till she had brought forth (gave birth to) her firstborn Son....Verse 25 clearly tells us that Joseph had a sexual relationship with his wife, Mary, and as a result had other children.
@opsvideo2008 Do the mathematics brother, do you even have a clue as to how many brothers and sisters Christ would have had if we were to take the scripture as you do? Just like the videos states, 80-90!
@CatholicConversion, Matthew 1:24-25 tells us Joseph, her husband DID NOT KNOW HER (have sexual intercourse with her) TILL SHE BROUGHT FORTH (GAVE BIRTH) HER FIRST BORN SON, JESUS. It obviously means Joseph had sex with her after Jesus was born. And Jesus being her FIRST BORN , means James, Joses, Judas, Simon and their sisters came later.
@CatholicConversion, When it comes to knowing the truth, it is so important to be honest with oneself. I could tell you that it is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun and if you are not honest with yourself, then you can deny and say no, the sun revolves around the earth. And that was what happened to poor Galileo who was forced to recant his heliocentric view by the Catholic church and put under house arrest.
Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin because the bible says clearly she was married to Joseph. Matthew 1:20 tells us..."But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph,son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit".
@dblazek08, You don't need the bible to specifically say that Mary was not a virgin for you to know she was not a virgin throughout her life. I have already quoted Matthew 1:24-25 which says Joseph her husband DID NOT KNOW HER (have sexual intercourse) till she had brought forth (gave birth) her first born Son, Jesus. The verses are so clear and confirmed the other verses as well.
@opsvideo2008 you can message me if you want to talk about that particular verse. See here's the thing. That verse says NOTHING about what happened after the birth of Christ, only what happened before. It' a flaw in the English usage of 'until'. But like I said, feel free to message me
@dblazek08, After the birth of Jesus Christ as THE FIRSTBORN of Mary, the bible does further tell us about Mary in Mark 6:3, when Jesus returned to His own village where the people who knew Him commented He was the Son of Mary and that His brothers were James, Joses, Judas & Simon. He even had sisters. There is no flaw in Matthew 1:24-25. It is as what it is, and confirms Mark 6:3.
@opsvideo2008 Firstborn does not imply a second and third born. Firstborn is a status symbol or position of authority in Hebrew tradition (Ex 13:2, for example). The firstborn was always called a firstborn, even if there was no other children. The problem with these 'brothers' is that they are given other parents. For example: James, earlier in Mark's Gospel, is found to be the Son of Zebedee (Mk 1:19-20).
@dblazek08, We humans have a capability which animals do not have and it is the capability to be in " a state of denial". Catholics argue for the perpetual virginity of Mary by saying the bible was wrongly interpreted, that the word till / untill doesn't mean what it means, etc.. The dictionary meaning of " firstborn" is first brought forth or eldest, which means there is a 2nd brought forth or youngest.
@opsvideo2008 Oh so the ancient Jewish people, being told to consecrate their firstborn, would only consecrate their oldest child IF they had more than one kid? Can you back that up with anything at all? See Jew' were commanded by God to consecrate their FIRSTBORN to him. This was done at birth (on the eight day, I think). But by your claim that 'firstborn' necessarily means second and third born, the first kid wouldn't be a 'firstborn' until the birth of the second child....
@dblazek08, The word "firstborn" is used when there is more than one child in the family. So to be called "firstborn" means to be born first before other siblings or children in the family. This is the meaning of the word in any dictionary you may refer to. If there is only one child in the family, the word used is "the only child". Please quote the bible book, chapter and verse with regards the word "Firstborn" you mentioned and I will reply.
@opsvideo2008 'Firstborn' IS NOT a biological matter. It's a birthright that goes back to the Law of Moses. Look at Ps 89:27. It says that God will make David the firstborn. But how is this possible if David was the youngest of eight (1 Sam 16:10-11). Firstborn was a birthright, and was given to the oldest child regardless of how many children the mother had. If it were not this way, then who would receive the birthright if the mother only had one Child?
@dblazek08, You are WRONG when you say Psalm 89:27 refers to David because the cross reference verses for this verse, provided in my bible are (1) with regards "firstborn"- Colossians 1: 15 &18...It is referring to JESUS being the " FIRSTBORN of the dead " meaning because of Jesus, His believers will also be born again to eternal life. So Jesus was the first, followed by His people.
@opsvideo2008 ok first-off: cross references aren't inspired. They're are entirely man-made and subjective. Second: v. 20 says "I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him (referring to the last mentioned proper noun, David). Read the rest of the Psalm. It talks about his 'line' (speaking of lineage or bloodline), and what will happen if he transgresses the law. Neither of these can be applied to David. (Though i will grant that David is a TYPE for Christ)
@dblazek08, If you say cross references are not inspired and entirely man-made, you might as well say the whole bible is man-made and full of errors, because man was used by God to write and interprete it into different languages. But we know 2nd Timothy 3:16 tells us.."ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD...." God doesn't make mistakes, not even one.
@dblazek08, Your only defence is that cross-references are not part of the bible. But it is not a defence at all because you do not have an expert understanding of the bible, unlike the bible scholars who translated it to the English language, who fully understood bible history, ancient Jewish customs, prophecies and its cross-references, which Jesus Himself also made when He quoted old testament in the 4 gospels.
@opsvideo2008 furthermore, if cross-references were always to be trusted, then every version of the bible would have the same, or virtually the same, references. But as anyone who has had any sort of educational background in theology knows, this is far from the case. Each one must be criticized and critiqued based on it's own merits.
@dblazek08, On top of the cross references for Psalms 89:27, which identified Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and not David being referred to as " higher than the kings of earth " , there are also independent bible commentaries, one of which I quoted below, which have confirmed that the Davidic Covenant was fulfilled not just by David and Solomon but Jesus Christ Himself, being a descendant of David.
@dblazek08, Cross references are very important to help us understand the bible better. For e.g. Matthew 27:26, 30 and Mathew 26:67 tell us Jesus was scourged (whipped) and spat in His face before he was crucified. Because of the cross reference, we know that the prophet Isaiah had already prophesied in Isaiah 50:6, 700 years earlier that this was exactly what would happen to the Jesus the Messiah.
@opsvideo2008 I didn't say that cross references were always wrong. I said they aren't inspired and are not part of scripture, therefore must always be questioned and it would be foolish to blindly follow them. I study under people who read, speak, and write fluent Greek and Aramaic just so they can get the fullest meaning from scripture. My opinion on cross referencing comes from them. They have openly told me that they cross out cross-references on a regular basis in their bibles..
@dblazek08, Well, the cross references are there for all bible readers to see and judge their relevance to the verse being read. More important to note is that these cross references are provided by a group of well qualified bible scholars and experts who translated the bible to the English language, and who are in agreement on the matter. It is not simply done by anybody to put their personal opinions through.
@dblazek08 (2) With regards Psalm 89:27 where it says "the highest of the kings of the earth " the cross reference verse given is Revelation 19:16 where it again REFERS TO JESUS (not King David) being THE KING OF KINGS AND THE LORD OF LORDS. The word of God is sacred and can never contradict itself; that is why we must understand any verse in the context of the whole bible.
@dblazek08, Because we laymen do not have the full understanding of how the whole bible comes together as one, especially with regards the old testament prophecies & references to Christ, we need bible scholar's knowledge to explain Psalm 89, and I will quote one commentary which explains why 89:27 refers to Jesus the Christ intead of David & which confirms the cross-references given.
@dblazek08 " The eighty-ninth Psalm is at once the confirmation and exposition of the Davidic Covenant 2 Sam 7:9-14. That the covenant itself LOOKS FAR BEYOND DAVID AND SOLOMON IS SURE FROM Ps 89:27. "HIGHER THAN THE KINGS OF THE EARTH " CAN ONLY REFER TO IMMANUEL (Jesus Christ). Isaiah 7:13-15, Isaiah 9:6,7, Micah 5:2....Quoted from Scofield Reference Notes.
@opsvideo2008, As part of the Davidic Covenant, which God made with King David, God promised David in 2nd Samuel 7:16 his throne shall be established forever. We know that neither David, Solomon nor any of their descendants could fulfill that particularly promise of God except Jesus, who is a descendant of David and now the King of Kings & Lord of Lords, sitted at the right hand of God.
@opsvideo2008 fair enough. but the psalm clearly says its talking about David. it flat out SAYS it earlier in the psalm. But no matter. Why don't you read what commentary says about being a firstborn (going back to the original topic). It's Jewish Tradition. Firstborn refers to the one who opened the womb. The firstborn was consecrated to God upon their birth. Meaning they were a firstborn, even when there was only one child. It's simple Jewish tradition.
@dblazek08, " Psalm 89:27 My first - born - As he calls me father, ver.26, so I will make him my son, yea my first - born; who had divers privileges above other sons. This and the following passage IN SOME SORT AGREE TO David, BUT ARE PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED IN CHRIST. Higher - This also was in some sort accomplished in David, but more fully in the Messiah."...Taken from Wesley's Commentary Notes.
@dblazek08, With regards "firstborn" in Jewish Tradition, please quote the bible verse you are referring to so that I will be able to reply in the same context. If you take any English dictionary ( and I mean WHATEVER dictionary ) and check out the meaning of the word "firstborn", it always means " born before other children or eldest "(Oxford). The bible scholars know this & we should not try to change the English language
@dblazek08, About the word "firstborn". I challenge you to open up ANY English dictionary & you will find the meaning to be " born before other children or the eldest ". When Jesus is described as the "firstborn" of Mary in Matthew 1:25, it means Jesus had younger brothers and sisters, which was again confirmed by Mark 6:3, which means Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, as erroneously taught by the catholic church.
@opsvideo2008 In fact, I found something that makes what I have been saying quite clear. Exodus 13:12. This is the Law of the Firstborn. Old Testament Tradition. it says to set apart every firstborn male to be consecrated to the Lord (made a Priest. this was before the priesthood was transferred to the Levites). it says that :consecrate to me every one of you that open the womb, that is the Firstborn... ALL that is meant by 'Firstborn' is the one that opens the womb.
@dblazek08, Also do not confuse James son of Zebedee with James, the brother of Jesus. During Jesus' time, and even now, many people have the same firstname. For e.g. Matthew 1:24-25 tells us Jesus also had a brother named Judas who is definitely not the same person of Judas, His disciple who betrayed Him. I am truly amazed by the type of weak excuses you come up with.
@opsvideo2008 Im sorry, am i missing something. Mt 1:24 is about Joseph waking up after the angel talked to him.....
Jesus had two followers named James: James son of Alphaeus and James the son of Zebedee. The son of Alphaeus had a son named Judas, also an apostle. So take your pick. Never is anyone named "James" referred to as a son of Joseph or Mary.
@dblazek08, Sorry, my mistake, it should be Mark 6:3 instead of Matthew 1:24, which tells us one of the younger brothers of Jesus was James. The bible does not always name the father of a person for e.g. Simon Bar Jonah (Simon, son of Jonah). This is shown in Mark 6:3, where it mentioned Jesus was the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon. Obviously, it straightaway infer they are sons of Joseph as Jesus is.
@opsvideo2008 You're begging the question. You cite the very text you are trying to prove as evidence. Im guessing you don't have much of an educational background when it comes to Jewish culture (as evident by your confusion over the roll of the firstborn), but none the less. The behavior of these 'younger brothers' in Mark 3:21 makes it evident that they were not younger brothers. In the Jewish world, speaking to the firstborn like this was a crime against the Temple and against God.
@dblazek08, You are WRONG AGAIN when you interprete Mark 3:21 as the brothers of Jesus saying "He is out of His mind." Mark 3:21 says..."And when His OWN PEOPLE heard about this...they said "He is out of His mind. " The cross-reference verse is Mark 6:3, which means His OWN PEOPLE refers to the people from his village, who called Him "out" of His mind, not His own family.
This is retarded, Marry was just a simple hebrew maiden and no she did not die a virgin, the scriptures do in fact say Jesus had brothers and sisters. She was married for cryin' out loud, who the heck can honestly believe something like what you're preaching?
Here is my Question to the Christians (non Catholics).
If you believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are false, How can you accept what is called the Bible today? It is a Historical fact that The Catholic picked from over 100 books and letters (New testament Apocrypha) the 27 books known as the New testament. This was done so 3 times, twice in the 4th Century and once in the 15th. So the Catholic Church can be trusted to bring the world the written Word of God, just not anything else?
If you chech to see James Jesus's brother was not saved or believe in Jesus as the LORD untill after Jesus was on the cross. Would you intrust your mother to a Non-Christian/ Non-Beleiver.
I find it hard to believe the idea that Mary never once slept with Joseph. I mean, why stay a virgin? She was married to him. It wouldn't be a sin, right? Also, if she was sinless, why would she call Jesus her savior too?
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoyced in God, my Savior."
That does make it clear what happened up to Christ's birth. one can not just assume anything the author may not know. The doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity was being taught in the first century, carried on by sacred tradition. It does not contradict anything in the bible, just assumptions like this one. Please consider my post below. Maybe you can answer it for me.
Obviously the church has a history of being wrong by their own admission. That's why vatican 2 was necessary. So why should anyone 100% trust them? Only the LORD is trustworthy.
No way. It's all careful semantics. For example, vatican 2 made it possible for mass to be held in all languages instead of just Latin. It was wrong to say the gospel should only be preached in Latin so they fixed it. It doesn't matter how you spin it, the belief of the church was changed.
The approach has changed. The Teachings remained exactly the same. Times change and needs change. The Church of course makes mistakes. Our Human nature will see to that. I do not trust the Catholic Church to not make mistakes. I trust their theology, doctrine and intentions. Which by the way have a great track record.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I think plenty of victims of the crusades didn't share your sentiment towards the church's infallible intentions though...
I do not remember using "infallible intentions" ......I am tempted to go on about the Spanish crusades but I do feel it will fall on deaf ears. You have made your mind up about the Catholic Church.
Any Chance you can explain my original question. about the bible?
@Smetch --This verse only intends to tell us that Jesus has no human father; it could be said that "up until Jesus birth" Joseph had no relations with Mary.
@Smetch doesn't Jesus promise to be with us until the end of the age? what do you think happens after that? this passage of scripture is assuring us of the divine incarnation and fulfilled prophecy of the Christ being born of a virgin...It has nothing to do with Mary.
don't forget this: Jesus says to Mary M. "Go tell my BROTHERS to meet me in Jerusalem (paraphrase) She tells the apostles. Note also: Mary, Jesus' mom is listed as the sister of Mary, James' mother also (John's crucifixion narrative).
@CBALLEN - Read any secular historian's book about Peter being in Rome, and you will see that Peter was in Rome.
What is your source that Peter was never in Rome? You have some protestant sources that do not have any credibility and are well known to spread gossips?
@INYO121277 - Celibacy of the catholic priests (including pope) is a discipline, not a doctrine. In the past, Catholic priests could marry. Still today, there are married priests in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Also, when a married protestant pastor becomes a Catholic priest upon conversion, he can remain married and still be a Catholic priest.
The commonly held belief is that Peter was married, but his wife died before he started following Christ.
If anyone wants to do any real research they will find out that it was Simon Magus who was the first pope of the RCC,that's why everything is so screwed up in Catholic theology.RC is mixed with the ancient Babylonian religion.The Bible tells us Peter was never in Rome,Paul was the Apostale to the Gentiles.
perhaps not, but can you contradict it? Every particle of the Catholic Tradition cannot be contradicted by scripture....however, it sometimes can be confirmed directly/indirectly by scripture and btw, its historical fact hat Peter was in rome.
Can you prove to me in scripture when Hitler reformed Germany? or when world war 2 started? The reason it is not mentioned is because it was common knowledge and didn't need to know it.Very well we know that Paul died in Rome,but do we know what his last words were before the Chop.All because scripture doesn't say he was in rome doesn't mean he never went to rome.
Simon Magus was a sourcer...he was the biggest heretic of the 1st century and early Catholic epistles and writings condemn his heresies. He started the Simonian cult, not the catholic hurch...
Surely you do not believe this.That is the biggest mistake I have ever seen.How can you say such things,since it was Peter who was listened in the records of Bishops of rome.Surely those of turkey and Egpyt could not have been tricked so easily as to agree that it is Peter the blessed apostle who was Bishop of Rome after ordaining the bishop in Antioch.
@CBALLEN - The extract below was taken from your protestant sources that lack credibility and are well known for spreading gossip. Insecure Protestants write these kinds of lies mentioned below:
"it was Simon Magus who was the first pope of the RCC"
When I ask Protestants to provide me with authentic scholarly source to prove their claim above, they can not show me any.
@mysteriumaenigma The Bible is the best source that proves that Peter was a disciple to the Jews,and was never in Rome.All R Catholics have supporting THEIR FLAWED NOTION THAT PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE ARE R.CATHOLIC,MADE UP SOURCES
@mysteriumaenigma I see all the things that R.Cs.believe and I just shake my head.Mary did not die a virgin and Peter was not a pope.All you people have as evidence in nothing more that in house writings that prove nothing.The Bible makes it all plain,but you folks believe man over God ,and there's your problem.
@mysteriumaenigma In 1 Peter 5:13, it tells us very plainly that he wrote that epistle from the city of Babylon.Peter remained in the middle east all his life.
Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman centurion.
02Blackbeard 1 month ago
I have always had to argue this with other religions, especially protestants who are solo scriptura (might i add that the chruch picks and chooses which books they recognize, based on whether or not it disproves their religion). I believe what I believe in, I dont try forcing it on you, so if I am damned for believing in the Immaculate Conception, then so be it, because God chose Mary to carry his only son and to me thats something special.
cjleger337 1 month ago
she was marry? the catholics are making sex like something bad
albusai 5 months ago
@albusai Well it is if your not married.
God Bless
villian714 3 months ago
Matthew 1:25 And (Joseph) KNEW her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he(Joseph) called his name Jesus.
JimmyCarol100 5 months ago
@JimmyCarol100 This person is confusing ppl sayn there's no hebrew/aramaic word for relatives, New Testaments written n greek. Luke 1:36 uses cousin=G4773-syggenes when refering to Elizabeth as Mary's cousin. It's a lie to say there's no words for relatives bcoz sometimes it depends on how much info is given as to how close people are related, example Leviticus 18 tells of uncovering nakedness of mothers, fathers, sis, bro, aunts, uncles, in-laws, by telln who's the nearest kin. continued
JimmyCarol100 4 months ago
@JimmyCarol100 Also do people not think that Mark 6:3 is Jesus home town would not know who His siblings were, not to mention n verse 4 Jesus says that a prophet is only without honor in his own country, among his own kin and own house. So when He says own house we know He does'nt mean His mother bcoz she knew the truth from the start, the rest caught on later. Jesus is GOD n flesh and chose John to take care of His mother coz John was the only one at the cross, the rest were afraid. Peace
JimmyCarol100 4 months ago
Poor Mary. So you don't want her to have children of her own in the natural way. Would you still pray to/through her if she did? The need to make Mary an Ever-Virgin is more sad than anything else. It is your desire that prompts this doctrine not any valid reason in the world.
GSOlsen123 5 months ago
I been a catholic for 5 years. I know too, just sorry that you can't see the truth. Go ahead and bow down to statues, and still deny that you are worshiping idols. You can't tell me what I saw with my own eyes. I just hope Jesus opens your eyes one day, I can't do that for you. God bless.
wasnt4me 6 months ago
@wasnt4me You have failed completely in proving your ridiculous point. Show me anywhwere that the Church teaches Mary worship. shown us where it says place Mary on equal footing with God. you can't because it doesn't. If you've been Catholic for 5 years, start going to Mass and let me know where the Mary worship fits in to the Missal. And which Idols are you talking about. Do you really know what an Idol is? You have no clue what you are talking about. What about the CCC? You blew it!
kingsmen711 6 months ago
This video, like all in this series, argues its point well. In this case, however, I think there is a larger issue being sidestepped... WHY do Catholics believe that Mary, a married woman, remained a virgin? Is that following the biblical example of a good wife?
GlorifiedTruth 7 months ago
@GlorifiedTruth
Look at it this way: You've just been hailed by Gods Angels, Found 2 be Highly Favorable in Gods eyes, & you have just been told that you will be pregnant by The Holy Spirit.
The day comes & out of YOUR WOMB, comes THE SON OF GOD. let that sink in.
If you were living a favorable virgin life before, why would you live any different after?
As we know, when we come together, we become ONE. Mary became one with The Spirit.
One question: How does rejecting Mary Honor Her Son Jesus?
luisluv65 7 months ago
@luisluv65 - I'm not aware that anyone has said anything about rejecting Mary. Mary is revered and honored by all Christians.
GlorifiedTruth 7 months ago
@GlorifiedTruth
I apologize, I meant to say "how does rejecting Marys virginity Honor Jesus?" but by the time I hit POST it was too late.
luisluv65 7 months ago
@luisluv65 - No problem! I don't think it's a matter of "honoring Jesus: by our disagreement; I think it's just a matter of perspective. For one thing, I no longer consider virginity a virtue once someone is married. There seems to be an anti-sex bias involved in the belief; I could be wrong about that.
GlorifiedTruth 7 months ago
HI FIVE!
irishgal2002697 8 months ago
@TheSacredHeart2- May Jesus bless you. I will not argue with you, nor lower my level of respect toward God's wonderful creation. Calling me names..... I love you and pray for Jesus's creation. I used to be a catholic, until I learned the truth of the Spanish Inquisition. The time of Christ's return draweth nigh, repent and do some research. May Christ open your spiritual eyes if that's his will.
wasnt4me 9 months ago
@wasnt4me You were never Catholic ! Possibly a New0rder katholick but not Catholic . You are just another
Vatican 2 Victim
SAYYOURROSARY 7 months ago
Another lie from Satan. May was not a perpetual virgin. After the birth of Jesus she maintained a normal sexual relationship with Joseph in the covenant of marriage. Scripture is quite clear that Joseph did not know her until she brought forth her first born son.
JNR
jnr8877 9 months ago
I am thankful for these comments. It helps me learn & realize how blind people really are who believe in Mary. 1978dagreat is right, Jesus rejects people blessing Mary because he is our true mediator & intercessor(1Tim.2:5-6; Heb.7:25). Catholics don't pay attention to scripture for if they did, they would know there is only ONE way to heaven(John14:6;Acts4:12). Greek is precise language. It makes a clear distinction between words used to describe family relationships.
wasnt4me 9 months ago
@wasnt4me I'm thankful for your comment because it shows what a disgusting liar and fraud you are. You hate Jesus and you deny him to His face. You are a dumb fool who puts your faith only in yourself.
TheSacredHeart2 9 months ago
Before I continue my reflections on this issue, I must say that I have a strong conviction for a huge possibility for those Brothers and Sisters mentioned in Matthew 13:55-58 can be Joseph's sons and daughters, this is a strong possibility instead to be only their relatives, so let's read these verses.
These are some words from my last post. If you want to read more, google "The Perfume of GOD" quotation included.
Portugal2100 9 months ago
@Portugal2100 The Gospel of "James the brother of Jesus" says the BVM was a concreated virgin.
YeshuaisYahweh1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Rebukes Mary Worship
LUKE 11:27,28
"And it came to pass as HE spake these things a certain woman of the company LIFTED up her voice & said unto him *Blessed* is the WOMB that BARE THEE & the PAPS which thou hast sucked. **BUT HE SAID** Yea RATHER, BLESSED are THEY that HEAR the WORD OF GOD & KEEP IT!!!
You think this is enough?....not quite, GOD does it again in Matt 12:46-50
With the testimony of 2 men...let that word be established. John 8:17 = Matthew & Luke
1978dagreat 10 months ago 2
@1978dagreat - Great job proving a great point. Too bad that catholics are trying to hide this info from others. Luke 11:27 & 28 and Matt. 12:46-50 shows that Jesus Rebukes Mary worship. The testimony of 2 witnesses is a very great comment (John 8:17). Jesus is our true mediator (1Tim.2:5-6; Heb.7:25). There is only one way to heaven (John14:6; Acts4:12). I hope Jesus opens your eyes to truth.
wasnt4me 6 months ago
@wasnt4me its clear that we are in the last days,
look how many lost catholics who believe in these lies...
keep telling the truth brother.
jesus is lord.
999Thip 6 months ago
@wasnt4me In somewhat typical Prot. fashion, you misrepresent the difference between worship and devotion. Catholics do not worship Mary. Period. And PLEASE look up the difference in "mediator" and "intercessor."
kingsmen711 6 months ago
@kingsmen711- I don't need to tell you the difference between Mediator and Intercessor when Jesus already tells us what that is. Did you even take the time to read scripture given by not just me, but others as well? I'm sorry, but I can't really focus on feeble comments when the answer is right in front of you. All I am saying is that people are making Mary into someone she's not. May god bless you.
wasnt4me 6 months ago
@wasnt4me Look, you flat out made the accusation that Catholics worship Mary. Your'e either dead wrong or lying on purpose. Where in Catholic Doctrine does it even remotely suggest that we "worship" Mary. With over 30,000 seperate denominations of Protestantism in the world, and no singular doctrine. No wonder Prots. are all over the map. 30,000 denominations and none of them can agree. What are Catholics making Mary out to be?
kingsmen711 6 months ago
@kingsmen711 Ok, I will give you my opinion on this matter since you asked. 1)Mother of the Church (Catechism 963,975); Co Mediator (Cat. 968-970, 2677); Queen of Heaven (Cat. 966, 971, 2675... Funny how god mentions this in Jer. 7:18, very similar); Rosary & Vain repetitions such as the The Salve Regina or Fatima Prayer. These are all CLEAR forms of Mary Worship. All glory God will not give to another (Isa. 42:8). The LORD Jesus Christ get's all the glory. Peace.
wasnt4me 6 months ago
@wasnt4me You sre still insisting that Catholics "worship" Mary as opposed to asking her for her prayers of interccession. Realize the difference.
kingsmen711 6 months ago
@wasnt4me It is easy for one to "look something up", quite a different story to understand what you have read. Mt.6:5-8 clearly addresses the VANITY of repetative prayers in public in order to lead others to think that you are a rightous person. We are implored to "close the door" and pray to our Father in secret. Your logic is that we should only recite the Lord's Prayer once in order to prevent us from being vain hyppocrites. (cont.)
kingsmen711 6 months ago
@wasnt4me (cont.) During His agony in Gethsemane, Christ prayed " My Father,if it is not possible that this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done." He prayed this not once, but three times while in the garden. Praying with a sincere and contrite heart is what matters, not the ridiculous notion that reciting a prayer many times is wrong. Praying with a prideful heart and to try and attract attention to ones self is exactly what Christ admonishes us for doing.
kingsmen711 6 months ago
@wasnt4me At the risk of sounding a bit cynical, I must say that your citing of the Catholic Catechism absolutely and without question refutes everything you are trying to prove. In every single one of the sections you listed there is not one single reference to the worship of Mary. Not one. What is written is wording such as devotion, honor, INTERCESSOR (look up the meaning!),advocate, helper, benefactress, mediatrix. Do you even know the purpose of reciting the Rosary? I think not.
kingsmen711 6 months ago
@wasnt4me And please remember one very simple rule when arguing with a knowledgable Catholic from a position outside the faith. It should go something like this... Ready!, Aim!, Fire! It should NOT go like you have insisted.... Ready!, Fire!, Aim! Please bear that in mind. You need to contextualize as opposed to being a literalist.
kingsmen711 6 months ago
BOLD FACED LIARS WHO CHOOSE TO LIVE IN DENIAL, DEFENDING A CULT THAT WILL ULTIMATELY SEND THEM TO THE LAKE OF FIRE WITHOUT MERCY ! WAKE UP RC'S !
AJBluesman 10 months ago
It is you that take Acts 1 out of context. 13,14-specifies people who where present. 15 THEN speaks of the others-it's an account of Peter appointing Matthias (who was also not mentioned by name in the previous passage). Luke 11:27 a woman yells out "blessed is the womb that bore You.." and Jesus answeres "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
carriebrk 1 year ago
The first flaw in the video is that it tells us that there was no ancient Hebrew word for cousin. This may be true, but the issue in question arisis in the New Testament, which was written in GREEK.
The Greek word for cousin is συγγενής suggenes, which means a relative, kinsman, or fellow countryman.
This is a different word than ἀδελφός adelphos (brother) or ἀδελφή adelphe (sister)
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago 2
Also in Galatians 1:19 Paul states James as the brother of our Lord. Him being there would have clarified wether James was a cousin or a brother.
Royman132 1 year ago
The Original New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. The language that was spoken was the language that was written. Dont confuse Aramaic or Hebrew with Greek just to prove your own preconcieved points.
Royman132 1 year ago
@Royman132 You're not supposed to know there is a difference between Hebrew and Greek. It destroys the whole argument.
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago
Matthew1
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
You don't even have to finish the first chapter of the New Testament to see that mary was not a perpetual virgin.
Mirkwood90 1 year ago
@Mirkwood90
"But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son."
And what in the above verse tells us that the marriage was consumed after the birth ?
Applying your interpretation to the very last verse in the same Gospel Matt 28:20 "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." - that should mean that Jesus is not going to be with us after the end of time. Correct ? Please explain.
MrJamesthecatholic 10 months ago
anepsios is the greek for cousin. Paul uses Adelphos for James and he knew both Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and probably Latin. Don't you think he would have the term relative or cousin if there was no relation. This is a doctrine that is not necessary for salvation.
motstraumen 1 year ago
@motstraumen "Anepsios" is actually "nephew" (male) in Greek, but you are right about the rest... Good stuff. The word for cousin is "ksadelphos".
AusPoliticalTruths 1 year ago
@AusPoliticalTruths Thank you, you are right. I need to use my greek more, it is slowly slipping away!
motstraumen 1 year ago
The N/T was translated into greek and they have specific words for Actual blood relative and cousin.Mark 6:3-4 these were his literal brothers and sisters because the word for brother is "Adelphos" literal blood relative. The word for Cousin is " Anepsios" not used here. So Jesus had literal brothers and sisters according to the bible, this refutes Rome's teaching that Mary remained a perpetual virgin all her life. Romes false doctrines are exposed by the truth of Scripture amen
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
You say the Aramaic did not have a word for cousin etc. Well, how come in Luke 1;36 it says "And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth..." ? Where did the word cousin come from ?
southwoodside 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Acts 1;14" "these (the disciples) ...with the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus (note: NOT Mary, the mother of God), and with his brethren"
Acts 1;15 " And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty"
Verse 15 is not the same occasion as verse 14 obviously or it would not say "in those days"
southwoodside 1 year ago
Acts 1;14" "these (the disciples) ...with the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus (note: NOT Mary, the mother of God), and with his brethren"
Acts 1;15 " And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty"
Verse 15 is not the same occasion as verse 14 obviously or it would not say "in those days"
southwoodside 1 year ago
Mark 6:3 is clearly refuted FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF, Mary the Mother of James, Joses, etc., is ANOTHER Mary, who is the Mary WIFE OF CLOPAS, Mark 15:40, also COMPARE Matthew 13:55 to Matthew 27:56, and John 19:25. SHAME ON YOU, and your IGNORANCE and BLASPHEMY. And SHAME on the Many "BIBLE ONLY" Christians, who DON'T Read the Bible. This is refuted from the BIBLE ITSELF.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
I personally think that Mary was most likely not a lifelong virgin. And the way it reads in the Bible, it nicely fits to say that she did have other children. There wouldn't be much issue over her virginity if the Catholic church had not added that ideology as doctrine. The Church Fathers differed in many ideologies, but they did not have the power to declare anything as doctrine, and the earliest ones like Clement admitted that.
shiverleaf15 1 year ago
Comment removed
bobbytmathew 1 year ago
Mathew 1:25
ESV .but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Wycliffe New Testament
....and he knew her not, til she hadde borun her firste bigete sone, and clepide his name Jhesus.
Amplified Bible
.....But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.
New American Standard Bible
.....but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
RJLoki247 1 year ago
I would suggest you talk to a scholar about it. i'm away from school, thus the weath of bible commentaries and dictionaries, so i can't properly cite anything. But let me ask you this, the old testament details many rights and duties/traditions of "firstborns". For example, before the Apostasy at Sinai, all firstborn males were to be consecrated as priests AT THEIR BIRTH. How could this be if 'firstborn' required more than one child? By your logic, they would have to wait for a second child...
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, There is no such thing as what you say that firstborn male Jews must be consecrated as priests at their birth. If you are so sure there is, then please quote the exact book, chapter and verse where you found it said that. Otherwise it just another catholic "smokescreen" man-made teaching, to confuse the poor catholic followers from understanding their bible, so that they continue to rely on their also ignorant priests.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Im just going to stop this conversation right here. Its obvious you have not read the old testament and actually you dont know HOW to read it. See you keep expecting every belief to be contained in one simple verse. I coundnt possible contain the Old Testament priesthood into one verse. Wantin it to be contained in one simple verse is like asking for the Nature of God to be summarized in one verse. Its not there and it cannot be done. The bible is a story. Read it as such.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, I am not asking you to quote only one bible verse to prove your assertion that the firstborn male Jew is required to be consecrated as a priest. If what you say is true, at least quote which book in the bible and the chapters which say that so that what you say have a basis. Ohterwise how can you make any claims of the bible to be true when you don't even know where to find it in the first place? It appears like only hearsay.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Exodus chapter 13 is in rearguards to the consecration of the firstborn. Not to mention the only people in the Old testament ever seen offering sacrifices or building alters are Firstborns
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, It is good of you to post Exodus chapter 13, as the basis of your point. Let me read it first to thoroughly understand the context and also do some research before I reply you later on this matter.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008, In Exodus 13:2, the word "firstborn" is used as a noun as in " Consecrate to Me all the first-born, whatever opens the womb...." Here it means " the child in a family who is born first. " The word first as used in this context means "never having happened before " for the mother, meaning the baby is her " firstborn ", her first experience giving birth to a baby, even if she is never going to have a 2nd baby.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Here is the explaination for the word "firstborn" being used in Matthew 1:25, where it mentioned Mary brought forth her firstborn Son, Jesus and in Exodus 13:2 where God told Moses to consecrate to Him all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, it belongs to Him. There is no error and no contradiction whatsoever in both these verses. Please see my next post.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, The Oxford dictionary lists two meanings for the word " first "...(1) 1st, coming before all others in time, order and importance.....(2) never having happened or been experienced before...(meaning for the first time ). From the American Heritage Dictionary, the word " firstborn" also has two meanings......(1) when used as an adjective, it means " first in order of birth; born first " (cont'd next comment)
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08....(2) when used as a noun, it means " the child in a family who is born first ". In Matthew 1:25, the word " firstborn" is used as an adjective as in " Mary brought forth her firstborn Son, Jesus " which means Jesus was first in order of birth before his other brothers and sisters. The word "first" used in the word "firstborn " here takes the meaning of 1st, coming BEFORE ALL OTHERS in time, order and importance. (cont'd)..
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, You can verify all the definitons that I have given you that is both in the Oxford and The American Heritage Dictionary. The English language is a very rich and precise language which the bible scholars were full aware of the different meanings of a particular word and its usage. The real word of God is perfect and never contradicts itself because it is the Holy Spirit who guided the chosen scholars in its translation.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, In conclusion, Matthew 1:25 means what is says that Jesus was Mary's firstborn Son, meaning Mary had other children after Jesus was born. This fact was again confirmed by Mark 6:3, which tells us the brothers of Jesus were James, Joses, Judas and Simon. And the fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus did not remain a perpetual virgin, as what was erroneously taught by the catholic church.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Here's the problem. The law of the firstborn's applied to all, reguardless of how many children the parents had. And even if the child had was an only child, he or she would still be called the firstborn. All that is meant by firstborn is the one who opened the womb. The word used for 'firstborn son' in Luke 2:7 is prototokos, but this is a mistranslation. Every single other use of any form of 'prototokos' in the bible simply translates to 'firstborn', used as a noun.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08 In the Greek, the word used used for 'first-born' is a noun as well. it would be similar to, while referring to Michelle Obama, saying she is the 'First Lady'. While 'first', taken by itself is not a nouns, the phrase as a whole is a noun. Furthermore, the fact your argument relies on linguistics is weak. logically speaking, 'first-born' says only that there were no children before. the fact you take it to mean there were children after is only an assumption.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, When you have no more rebuttals to the evidence I presented to you, your final and only defence is to say the words were wrongly translated, in effect saying you are more knowledgable than the expert bible scholars who knew the Greek, Hebrew and English language intimately. Even your catholic Douay-Rheims bible (1582) agrees with the King James Version (1611).
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Based on your opinion, you say Matthew 1:25 should be interpreted as only "firstborn" and not "firstborn Son". I now challenge you to find me any English translated bible, which only shows the word "firstborn" as what you believed should be. There is NONE because it is just your own personal opinion which is WRONG. You might as well erroneously challenge your own catholic Douay-Rheims bible as wrong.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 these 'authorities' you are appealing to have no connection to ancient Judaism and the traditions of those cultures. The early Church Father's, however, did. And they, almost unanimously, agree that Mary was perpetually virgin. Some of them, those who offered commentary for the bible, specifically say that 'first-born' does not imply second and third. First born refers to Mosic tradition which says that a 'firstborn' is the one whom opens the womb.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Yes, the bible defined in Exodus 13:2 that the firstborn (noun) is the child who opens the womb of the mother. No argument about that. It is Matthew 1:25 that says Mary gave birth to her FIRSTBORN SON, Jesus ("firstborn" here being used as an adjective) which tells us Jesus was the first of many sons, the definitive meaning as provided by the authority of both the Oxford and American Heritage dictionary.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 But the authority of the early church fathers, the ones responsible for the translation, preservation, and understanding of Scripture and who defended it and Christianity in general from the countless heresy of the time say otherwise. Like i said, just as 'First Lady' is a proper noun, so is 'Fisrt-born son'
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, The English version of the bible was first translated in the 16th century and like I said earlier, even the catholic Douay-Rheims bible, translated in 1582 agrees with the Protestant King James Version on Matthew 1:25 where the words "firstborn Son " was used. You are also confusing the word " first" in "First Lady" with the bible word "firstborn" , which itself has 2 meanings, when used as a noun or an adjective.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Like I explained earlier, the word "firstborn" is used as a noun in Exodus 13:2 , therefore its meaning is " the child in a family who is born first time in the family " the mother never having gave birth before. If your only defence is that the word "firstborn Son" was wrongly translated in Matthew 1:25, then it is a weak defence because even your catholic Douay-Rheims bible (1582) has it interpreted as "firstborn Son".
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, The explaination I offer is not by my own authority but the authority of the Oxford and American Heritage dictionary on how the meanings of "firstborn" should be interpreted. You are offering your own interpretation and opinion, which contradicts what the world recognized authorities are saying. That is why you are not a bible scholar, otherwise you would be putting your own unsupported views into the your translations.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, @dblazek08, The other thing I noted is that you don't give enough credit to the many bible scholars who translated the bible to the English language. If ever anyone is an expert, they are the people with their knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew and the English language. It would be preposterous to even think they would make that kind of simple error, to use the word "firstborn" and not knowing its meaning.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
Blessed be Mary, OUR Mother..
Protestants need her more, so we pray that every Luther follower comes back to the right path.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
That is why the people from Jesus' own country said this in Mark 6:3...."Is this not the carpenter (Jesus), the Son of Mary, AND THE BROTHER OF James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not His SISTERS here with us?"..." This verse together with Matthew 1:24-25 clearly tells us why Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin, because as a wife she had a sexual relationship with her husband and had children.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 It is well known in tradition that many of these were names of cousins of Jesus.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
That is why the people from Jesus' own country said this in Mark 6:3...."Is this not the carpenter (Jesus), the Son of Mary, AND THE BROTHER OF James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not His SISTERS here with us?"..." This verse together with Matthew 1:24-25 clearly tells us why Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin, because as a wife she had a sexual relationship with her husband and had children.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
Then Matthew 1: 24-25 tells us..." Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, AND DID NOT KNOW HER (meaning have sexual intercourse with her) till she had brought forth (gave birth to) her firstborn Son....Verse 25 clearly tells us that Joseph had a sexual relationship with his wife, Mary, and as a result had other children.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Do the mathematics brother, do you even have a clue as to how many brothers and sisters Christ would have had if we were to take the scripture as you do? Just like the videos states, 80-90!
Is that rational?
CatholicConversion 1 year ago
@CatholicConversion, Matthew 1:24-25 tells us Joseph, her husband DID NOT KNOW HER (have sexual intercourse with her) TILL SHE BROUGHT FORTH (GAVE BIRTH) HER FIRST BORN SON, JESUS. It obviously means Joseph had sex with her after Jesus was born. And Jesus being her FIRST BORN , means James, Joses, Judas, Simon and their sisters came later.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@CatholicConversion, When it comes to knowing the truth, it is so important to be honest with oneself. I could tell you that it is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun and if you are not honest with yourself, then you can deny and say no, the sun revolves around the earth. And that was what happened to poor Galileo who was forced to recant his heliocentric view by the Catholic church and put under house arrest.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Excellent "apologetics" and "exegesis". Apparently you have this base covered. Keep up the good work. God bless you.
JONAH222NCSGAZ 1 year ago
Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin because the bible says clearly she was married to Joseph. Matthew 1:20 tells us..."But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph,son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit".
opsvideo2008 1 year ago 2
@opsvideo2008 Sorry, I must be missing the part about where it says she's not a vigin....
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, You don't need the bible to specifically say that Mary was not a virgin for you to know she was not a virgin throughout her life. I have already quoted Matthew 1:24-25 which says Joseph her husband DID NOT KNOW HER (have sexual intercourse) till she had brought forth (gave birth) her first born Son, Jesus. The verses are so clear and confirmed the other verses as well.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 you can message me if you want to talk about that particular verse. See here's the thing. That verse says NOTHING about what happened after the birth of Christ, only what happened before. It' a flaw in the English usage of 'until'. But like I said, feel free to message me
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, After the birth of Jesus Christ as THE FIRSTBORN of Mary, the bible does further tell us about Mary in Mark 6:3, when Jesus returned to His own village where the people who knew Him commented He was the Son of Mary and that His brothers were James, Joses, Judas & Simon. He even had sisters. There is no flaw in Matthew 1:24-25. It is as what it is, and confirms Mark 6:3.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Firstborn does not imply a second and third born. Firstborn is a status symbol or position of authority in Hebrew tradition (Ex 13:2, for example). The firstborn was always called a firstborn, even if there was no other children. The problem with these 'brothers' is that they are given other parents. For example: James, earlier in Mark's Gospel, is found to be the Son of Zebedee (Mk 1:19-20).
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, We humans have a capability which animals do not have and it is the capability to be in " a state of denial". Catholics argue for the perpetual virginity of Mary by saying the bible was wrongly interpreted, that the word till / untill doesn't mean what it means, etc.. The dictionary meaning of " firstborn" is first brought forth or eldest, which means there is a 2nd brought forth or youngest.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Oh so the ancient Jewish people, being told to consecrate their firstborn, would only consecrate their oldest child IF they had more than one kid? Can you back that up with anything at all? See Jew' were commanded by God to consecrate their FIRSTBORN to him. This was done at birth (on the eight day, I think). But by your claim that 'firstborn' necessarily means second and third born, the first kid wouldn't be a 'firstborn' until the birth of the second child....
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, The word "firstborn" is used when there is more than one child in the family. So to be called "firstborn" means to be born first before other siblings or children in the family. This is the meaning of the word in any dictionary you may refer to. If there is only one child in the family, the word used is "the only child". Please quote the bible book, chapter and verse with regards the word "Firstborn" you mentioned and I will reply.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 'Firstborn' IS NOT a biological matter. It's a birthright that goes back to the Law of Moses. Look at Ps 89:27. It says that God will make David the firstborn. But how is this possible if David was the youngest of eight (1 Sam 16:10-11). Firstborn was a birthright, and was given to the oldest child regardless of how many children the mother had. If it were not this way, then who would receive the birthright if the mother only had one Child?
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, You are WRONG when you say Psalm 89:27 refers to David because the cross reference verses for this verse, provided in my bible are (1) with regards "firstborn"- Colossians 1: 15 &18...It is referring to JESUS being the " FIRSTBORN of the dead " meaning because of Jesus, His believers will also be born again to eternal life. So Jesus was the first, followed by His people.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 ok first-off: cross references aren't inspired. They're are entirely man-made and subjective. Second: v. 20 says "I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him (referring to the last mentioned proper noun, David). Read the rest of the Psalm. It talks about his 'line' (speaking of lineage or bloodline), and what will happen if he transgresses the law. Neither of these can be applied to David. (Though i will grant that David is a TYPE for Christ)
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, If you say cross references are not inspired and entirely man-made, you might as well say the whole bible is man-made and full of errors, because man was used by God to write and interprete it into different languages. But we know 2nd Timothy 3:16 tells us.."ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD...." God doesn't make mistakes, not even one.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Cross-references aren't scripture. they weren't added until hundreds of years later by the publisher of your bible.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Your only defence is that cross-references are not part of the bible. But it is not a defence at all because you do not have an expert understanding of the bible, unlike the bible scholars who translated it to the English language, who fully understood bible history, ancient Jewish customs, prophecies and its cross-references, which Jesus Himself also made when He quoted old testament in the 4 gospels.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 furthermore, if cross-references were always to be trusted, then every version of the bible would have the same, or virtually the same, references. But as anyone who has had any sort of educational background in theology knows, this is far from the case. Each one must be criticized and critiqued based on it's own merits.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, On top of the cross references for Psalms 89:27, which identified Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and not David being referred to as " higher than the kings of earth " , there are also independent bible commentaries, one of which I quoted below, which have confirmed that the Davidic Covenant was fulfilled not just by David and Solomon but Jesus Christ Himself, being a descendant of David.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Cross references are very important to help us understand the bible better. For e.g. Matthew 27:26, 30 and Mathew 26:67 tell us Jesus was scourged (whipped) and spat in His face before he was crucified. Because of the cross reference, we know that the prophet Isaiah had already prophesied in Isaiah 50:6, 700 years earlier that this was exactly what would happen to the Jesus the Messiah.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 I didn't say that cross references were always wrong. I said they aren't inspired and are not part of scripture, therefore must always be questioned and it would be foolish to blindly follow them. I study under people who read, speak, and write fluent Greek and Aramaic just so they can get the fullest meaning from scripture. My opinion on cross referencing comes from them. They have openly told me that they cross out cross-references on a regular basis in their bibles..
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Well, the cross references are there for all bible readers to see and judge their relevance to the verse being read. More important to note is that these cross references are provided by a group of well qualified bible scholars and experts who translated the bible to the English language, and who are in agreement on the matter. It is not simply done by anybody to put their personal opinions through.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08 (2) With regards Psalm 89:27 where it says "the highest of the kings of the earth " the cross reference verse given is Revelation 19:16 where it again REFERS TO JESUS (not King David) being THE KING OF KINGS AND THE LORD OF LORDS. The word of God is sacred and can never contradict itself; that is why we must understand any verse in the context of the whole bible.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 READ THE PSALM!!! It says twice that it's talking about DAVID! put down you're cross references, they're simply wrong.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Because we laymen do not have the full understanding of how the whole bible comes together as one, especially with regards the old testament prophecies & references to Christ, we need bible scholar's knowledge to explain Psalm 89, and I will quote one commentary which explains why 89:27 refers to Jesus the Christ intead of David & which confirms the cross-references given.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08 " The eighty-ninth Psalm is at once the confirmation and exposition of the Davidic Covenant 2 Sam 7:9-14. That the covenant itself LOOKS FAR BEYOND DAVID AND SOLOMON IS SURE FROM Ps 89:27. "HIGHER THAN THE KINGS OF THE EARTH " CAN ONLY REFER TO IMMANUEL (Jesus Christ). Isaiah 7:13-15, Isaiah 9:6,7, Micah 5:2....Quoted from Scofield Reference Notes.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008, As part of the Davidic Covenant, which God made with King David, God promised David in 2nd Samuel 7:16 his throne shall be established forever. We know that neither David, Solomon nor any of their descendants could fulfill that particularly promise of God except Jesus, who is a descendant of David and now the King of Kings & Lord of Lords, sitted at the right hand of God.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 fair enough. but the psalm clearly says its talking about David. it flat out SAYS it earlier in the psalm. But no matter. Why don't you read what commentary says about being a firstborn (going back to the original topic). It's Jewish Tradition. Firstborn refers to the one who opened the womb. The firstborn was consecrated to God upon their birth. Meaning they were a firstborn, even when there was only one child. It's simple Jewish tradition.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, " Psalm 89:27 My first - born - As he calls me father, ver.26, so I will make him my son, yea my first - born; who had divers privileges above other sons. This and the following passage IN SOME SORT AGREE TO David, BUT ARE PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED IN CHRIST. Higher - This also was in some sort accomplished in David, but more fully in the Messiah."...Taken from Wesley's Commentary Notes.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, With regards "firstborn" in Jewish Tradition, please quote the bible verse you are referring to so that I will be able to reply in the same context. If you take any English dictionary ( and I mean WHATEVER dictionary ) and check out the meaning of the word "firstborn", it always means " born before other children or eldest "(Oxford). The bible scholars know this & we should not try to change the English language
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@dblazek08, About the word "firstborn". I challenge you to open up ANY English dictionary & you will find the meaning to be " born before other children or the eldest ". When Jesus is described as the "firstborn" of Mary in Matthew 1:25, it means Jesus had younger brothers and sisters, which was again confirmed by Mark 6:3, which means Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, as erroneously taught by the catholic church.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 In fact, I found something that makes what I have been saying quite clear. Exodus 13:12. This is the Law of the Firstborn. Old Testament Tradition. it says to set apart every firstborn male to be consecrated to the Lord (made a Priest. this was before the priesthood was transferred to the Levites). it says that :consecrate to me every one of you that open the womb, that is the Firstborn... ALL that is meant by 'Firstborn' is the one that opens the womb.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Also do not confuse James son of Zebedee with James, the brother of Jesus. During Jesus' time, and even now, many people have the same firstname. For e.g. Matthew 1:24-25 tells us Jesus also had a brother named Judas who is definitely not the same person of Judas, His disciple who betrayed Him. I am truly amazed by the type of weak excuses you come up with.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 Im sorry, am i missing something. Mt 1:24 is about Joseph waking up after the angel talked to him.....
Jesus had two followers named James: James son of Alphaeus and James the son of Zebedee. The son of Alphaeus had a son named Judas, also an apostle. So take your pick. Never is anyone named "James" referred to as a son of Joseph or Mary.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, Sorry, my mistake, it should be Mark 6:3 instead of Matthew 1:24, which tells us one of the younger brothers of Jesus was James. The bible does not always name the father of a person for e.g. Simon Bar Jonah (Simon, son of Jonah). This is shown in Mark 6:3, where it mentioned Jesus was the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon. Obviously, it straightaway infer they are sons of Joseph as Jesus is.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
@opsvideo2008 You're begging the question. You cite the very text you are trying to prove as evidence. Im guessing you don't have much of an educational background when it comes to Jewish culture (as evident by your confusion over the roll of the firstborn), but none the less. The behavior of these 'younger brothers' in Mark 3:21 makes it evident that they were not younger brothers. In the Jewish world, speaking to the firstborn like this was a crime against the Temple and against God.
dblazek08 1 year ago
@dblazek08, You are WRONG AGAIN when you interprete Mark 3:21 as the brothers of Jesus saying "He is out of His mind." Mark 3:21 says..."And when His OWN PEOPLE heard about this...they said "He is out of His mind. " The cross-reference verse is Mark 6:3, which means His OWN PEOPLE refers to the people from his village, who called Him "out" of His mind, not His own family.
opsvideo2008 1 year ago
This is retarded, Marry was just a simple hebrew maiden and no she did not die a virgin, the scriptures do in fact say Jesus had brothers and sisters. She was married for cryin' out loud, who the heck can honestly believe something like what you're preaching?
thefreejack66 1 year ago
@thefreejack66 People who understand holiness.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
Here is my Question to the Christians (non Catholics).
If you believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are false, How can you accept what is called the Bible today? It is a Historical fact that The Catholic picked from over 100 books and letters (New testament Apocrypha) the 27 books known as the New testament. This was done so 3 times, twice in the 4th Century and once in the 15th. So the Catholic Church can be trusted to bring the world the written Word of God, just not anything else?
micaletti14 2 years ago
Comment removed
micaletti14 2 years ago
If you chech to see James Jesus's brother was not saved or believe in Jesus as the LORD untill after Jesus was on the cross. Would you intrust your mother to a Non-Christian/ Non-Beleiver.
turtle4aire 2 years ago
Ancient Hebrew words.....
ACH - Brother
ACHUT - Sister
GIS - brother-in-law
GISA - sister-in-law
READ THE SCRIPTURES MY FRIENDS IN JESUS!!! LET THE WORD OF GOD SPEAK FOR ITSELF!!!!!!
TheLORDismySheperd1 2 years ago
I find it hard to believe the idea that Mary never once slept with Joseph. I mean, why stay a virgin? She was married to him. It wouldn't be a sin, right? Also, if she was sinless, why would she call Jesus her savior too?
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoyced in God, my Savior."
Luke 1:47
Those who are sinless need no savior.
God bless.
whiteclaudia9 2 years ago
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The operative word is "till"
Smetch 2 years ago
That does make it clear what happened up to Christ's birth. one can not just assume anything the author may not know. The doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity was being taught in the first century, carried on by sacred tradition. It does not contradict anything in the bible, just assumptions like this one. Please consider my post below. Maybe you can answer it for me.
micaletti14 2 years ago
Again, "til".
Obviously the church has a history of being wrong by their own admission. That's why vatican 2 was necessary. So why should anyone 100% trust them? Only the LORD is trustworthy.
Smetch 2 years ago
Vatican 2 made NO DOCTRINE CHANGES. That is easy to check I encourage you to do so. Does that change your thoughts on the Church now?
micaletti14 2 years ago
No way. It's all careful semantics. For example, vatican 2 made it possible for mass to be held in all languages instead of just Latin. It was wrong to say the gospel should only be preached in Latin so they fixed it. It doesn't matter how you spin it, the belief of the church was changed.
Smetch 2 years ago
The approach has changed. The Teachings remained exactly the same. Times change and needs change. The Church of course makes mistakes. Our Human nature will see to that. I do not trust the Catholic Church to not make mistakes. I trust their theology, doctrine and intentions. Which by the way have a great track record.
micaletti14 2 years ago
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I think plenty of victims of the crusades didn't share your sentiment towards the church's infallible intentions though...
Smetch 2 years ago
I do not remember using "infallible intentions" ......I am tempted to go on about the Spanish crusades but I do feel it will fall on deaf ears. You have made your mind up about the Catholic Church.
Any Chance you can explain my original question. about the bible?
micaletti14 2 years ago
@Smetch --anything that is not doctrine or dogma can change.
AtomicMonster454 2 years ago
@Smetch --This verse only intends to tell us that Jesus has no human father; it could be said that "up until Jesus birth" Joseph had no relations with Mary.
AtomicMonster454 2 years ago
@Smetch doesn't Jesus promise to be with us until the end of the age? what do you think happens after that? this passage of scripture is assuring us of the divine incarnation and fulfilled prophecy of the Christ being born of a virgin...It has nothing to do with Mary.
OftenCommunicant 2 years ago
don't forget this: Jesus says to Mary M. "Go tell my BROTHERS to meet me in Jerusalem (paraphrase) She tells the apostles. Note also: Mary, Jesus' mom is listed as the sister of Mary, James' mother also (John's crucifixion narrative).
cheesemonkey1990 2 years ago
It was Simon the sorcerer,he was the first PETER,another name for a god.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
CBALLEN - Typical anti-Catholic lies spread by Protestants that do not have any proof :)
There is overwhelming amount of historical evidence that Peter was in Rome.
Protestant liers :)
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago 2
You're ignorant.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
CBALLEN - You are ignorant and so are your pastors.
Just read any secular history books about Peter being in Rome.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago 3
According to Roman sources.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
@CBALLEN - Read any secular historian's book about Peter being in Rome, and you will see that Peter was in Rome.
What is your source that Peter was never in Rome? You have some protestant sources that do not have any credibility and are well known to spread gossips?
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
The Bible tells us that Peter was a disciple to the JEWS.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
@CBALLEN - Peter was a deciple to everybody who wanted to be a Christian.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
@mysteriumaenigma
Peter never be a POPE.
Is Pope cannot marry?
Then why peter have mother-in-law?\
Peter never loved by the world like the pope
INYO121277 1 year ago
@INYO121277 - Celibacy of the catholic priests (including pope) is a discipline, not a doctrine. In the past, Catholic priests could marry. Still today, there are married priests in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Also, when a married protestant pastor becomes a Catholic priest upon conversion, he can remain married and still be a Catholic priest.
The commonly held belief is that Peter was married, but his wife died before he started following Christ.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
If anyone wants to do any real research they will find out that it was Simon Magus who was the first pope of the RCC,that's why everything is so screwed up in Catholic theology.RC is mixed with the ancient Babylonian religion.The Bible tells us Peter was never in Rome,Paul was the Apostale to the Gentiles.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Unsubstantiated claim.
haojiesheng 2 years ago
Only disputed by Catholics.Go figure.Can you prove to me through scripture when Peter was in Rome?
CBALLEN 2 years ago
perhaps not, but can you contradict it? Every particle of the Catholic Tradition cannot be contradicted by scripture....however, it sometimes can be confirmed directly/indirectly by scripture and btw, its historical fact hat Peter was in rome.
msmonica452 2 years ago
Can you prove to me in scripture when Hitler reformed Germany? or when world war 2 started? The reason it is not mentioned is because it was common knowledge and didn't need to know it.Very well we know that Paul died in Rome,but do we know what his last words were before the Chop.All because scripture doesn't say he was in rome doesn't mean he never went to rome.
Sievad1991 2 years ago
The Mormons tell us Jesus went to the Americas to preach the Gospel too.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Simon Magus was a sourcer...he was the biggest heretic of the 1st century and early Catholic epistles and writings condemn his heresies. He started the Simonian cult, not the catholic hurch...
amabilis77 2 years ago
Surely you do not believe this.That is the biggest mistake I have ever seen.How can you say such things,since it was Peter who was listened in the records of Bishops of rome.Surely those of turkey and Egpyt could not have been tricked so easily as to agree that it is Peter the blessed apostle who was Bishop of Rome after ordaining the bishop in Antioch.
May God bless you,
Mark
Sievad1991 2 years ago
@CBALLEN That's a new one.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@CBALLEN - The extract below was taken from your protestant sources that lack credibility and are well known for spreading gossip. Insecure Protestants write these kinds of lies mentioned below:
"it was Simon Magus who was the first pope of the RCC"
When I ask Protestants to provide me with authentic scholarly source to prove their claim above, they can not show me any.
Insecure people spread lies.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
@mysteriumaenigma The Bible is the best source that proves that Peter was a disciple to the Jews,and was never in Rome.All R Catholics have supporting THEIR FLAWED NOTION THAT PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE ARE R.CATHOLIC,MADE UP SOURCES
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN - Exatly where in the bible does it say that Peter was never in Rome?
Send me the verse.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
@mysteriumaenigma He was a disciple to the Jews,it never,ever,shows him going to Rome,Paul is the only one who went to Rome.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@mysteriumaenigma I see all the things that R.Cs.believe and I just shake my head.Mary did not die a virgin and Peter was not a pope.All you people have as evidence in nothing more that in house writings that prove nothing.The Bible makes it all plain,but you folks believe man over God ,and there's your problem.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN - Why are you avoiding my question?
You said bible says that Peter was NEVER in Rome?
Where is that verse in bible that says that? Send me that verse.
Insecure Protestants spread lies.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
@mysteriumaenigma In 1 Peter 5:13, it tells us very plainly that he wrote that epistle from the city of Babylon.Peter remained in the middle east all his life.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN - I asked for the verse that s