Most of my Catholic contacts often say that they are taught to believe that they must be more loyal to the church than to the bible. In other words they don't see the bible as the final arbitre of truth and doctrines.

What do you think is the source of authority? The RCC's traditions, or is it God's word?

Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

A case in point is the teaching that Mary went straight to heaven without seeing death. On what basis should we believe such a teaching when there is no biblical basis for it?

Would you accept such a teaching because it may sound appealing?

Another doctrine that is not bible-based that has become a Roman Catholic doctrine is the one that says that Mary mother of Jesus remained a virgin.

The word of God says to the contrary:

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BRETHREN." Acts 1:13-14

God says "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James THE LORD'S BROTHER." Galatians 1:19

As favoured as Mary was of God, do Catholics really believe that God Almighty would punish her with a barren womb after being used as a chosen vessel to deliver His Only Begotten Son? Wouldn't this be an indictment on God Himself? What kind of an all-loving God would do something like that?

1 Corinthians 7:3-5, "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Don't mind the catholics.They are just another set of deceieved deceivers.
Check out this article that says a lot about the falsehoods and contradictions existing within their faith:

http://www.letusreason.org/RC19.htm

Most of my Catholic contacts often say that they are taught to believe that they must be more loyal to the church than to the bible. In other words they don't see the bible as the final arbitre of truth and doctrines

Don't come here and lie, the Church does not teach any such thing. If anyone told you this they are lying. Be careful who calls themselves a Catholic, we already many on Nairaland who try to validate their statements by saying that they were once Catholics, but when we ask them questions about Catholicism they run away.

What do you think is the source of authority? The RCC's traditions, or is it God's word?

Well the authority comes from God, even the Bible will tell you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the Bible calls the Church (not the Bible) the foundation and pillar of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

I hope you actually know what the traditions of the Church is before you start speaking false things.

Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

Did God give the Bible authority to preach and spread the good news, cast out demons, and such or did he give it to the Church (the people)he founded?
If you can answer this you can answer your question.

A case in point is the teaching that Mary went straight to heaven without seeing death. On what basis should we believe such a teaching when there is no biblical basis for it?

That isn't a teaching of the Church. The teaching is that Mary fell asleep, which is death, and then was taken to heaven. There is biblical basis for it, go to Revelations 12
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

This man child is Christ, while the woman here is mostly applied to the Church and the crown of twelve stars as the apostles, it can be applied, by allusion, to Mary. As we know that she is the one who gave birth to the man child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. Mary is seen as a type of Church (that's a discussion for another day)

Would you accept such a teaching because it may sound appealing?

It isn't appealing at all, which is why many of you do not understand it. She is a part of the mystery of Christ, and if you deny her mystery, you deny Christ's too. A child is always tied to his mother.

But may I ask you, did Mary give birth to a person or just to an empty body?

Another doctrine that is not bible-based that has become a Roman Catholic doctrine is the one that says that Mary mother of Jesus remained a virgin.

The word of God says to the contrary:

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and  James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of  Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one  accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BRETHREN."  Acts 1:13-14

God says "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James THE LORD'S BROTHER."  Galatians 1:19

As favoured as Mary was of God, do Catholics really believe that God Almighty would punish her with a barren womb after being used as a chosen vessel to deliver His Only Begotten Son? Wouldn't this be an indictment on God Himself? What kind of an all-loving God would do something like that?

Scholars will tell you that those brothers of Jesus most likely belong to Joseph from a different marriage. It is also possible that James was the son of another Mary related to Jesus, Mary the Mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary. In Aramaic there isn't a word for cousins, everyone is simply referred to as brother and sister, unless we are to assume that Mary had a sister also named Mary, I would say that Mary called her sister is a relative, a cousin.

Let's not forget that Jesus spoke aramaic and not english. and the Bible was not written in english, it is translated word for word without regard to the culture or custom or use of a word of the language it was originally written in.

Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezekiel 44:2
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. Why would she leave her other children behind, why would they leave their other siblings behind and go searching for Jesus alone.

John 19:26-27 - 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would Jesus commit Mary into the hands of a disciple if she had other children to care for her? it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25  25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene - I spoke of the other Mary related to Jesus, you see her here in scripture.

Matt. 27:61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre , 28:1 - 1 And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.
Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee
Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Mark 15:47 47 And Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid.

We know that the 'other Mary' is the one that accompanied Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre and here she is called mother of Joseph. We see from Matthew 27:56 that Mary the mother of Joseph is also Mary the mother of James.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Do not forget that there are several Mary's in the Bible.

Lol@ punish Mary with a barren womb. A barren womb is one that cannot conceive, Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus so how is she barren?

Look when you are ready to discuss the doctrine of the Church without contempt in your heart, you may do so, until then make sure you are not holding animosity in your heart because it will be clear for all to see and no one will take you seriously.

Don't mind the catholics.They are just another set of deceieved deceivers.

A set of deceived deceivers that defined your Bible for you, so what does that make you? Or what do you think, the Bible just fell from the sky?

Don't come here and lie, the Church does not teach any such thing. If anyone told you this they are lying. Be careful who calls themselves a Catholic, we already many on Nairaland who try to validate their statements by saying that they were once Catholics, but when we ask them questions about Catholicism they run away.

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

Well the authority comes from God, even the Bible will tell you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the Bible calls the Church (not the Bible) the foundation and pillar of truth.

Thank you for stating the obvious. That wasn't the question I asked initially. There is a vast difference between what came out of inspiration, that is the word of God, and what was invented by a group of men, called the cathechism.

1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

I hope you actually know what the traditions of the Church is before you start speaking false things.

Well, hang around and you will see where I am heading.  I hope for your sake you will hang around.

Did God give the Bible authority to preach and spread the good news, cast out demons, and such or did he give it to the Church (the people)he founded? If you can answer this you can answer your question.

Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you earlier? And can you give me a honest answer this time around? Here is the question again, Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command, or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

That isn't a teaching of the Church. The teaching is that Mary fell asleep, which is death, and then was taken to heaven. There is biblical basis for it, go to Revelations 12: 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

This man child is Christ, while the woman here is mostly applied to the Church and the crown of twelve stars as the apostles, it can be applied, by allusion, to Mary. As we know that she is the one who gave birth to the man child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. Mary is seen as a type of Church (that's a discussion for another day)

And where in this passage did it say that Mary went to heaven?

Anyway, we know as Christians that Jesus on the Cross admonished John the beloved disciple to take care of Mary His mother. It is obvious she too died, and remains dead until Jesus comes back again and call her from the grave. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that remotely indicates that Mary was later resurrected from the dead.

Your task is to show from scriptures that Mary was resurrected. Any attempt at extra-biblical material will only prove the purpose of my thread true, and the purpose of my thread is to show that the RCC leaders have taken it up on themselves to attempt to replace God's truth with their doctrines and traditions.

Scholars will tell you that those brothers of Jesus most likely belong to Joseph from a different marriage. It is also possible that James was the son of another Mary related to Jesus, Mary the Mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary. In Aramaic there isn't a word for cousins, everyone is simply referred to as brother and sister, unless we are to assume that Mary had a sister also named Mary, I would say that Mary called her sister is a relative, a cousin.

So if there isn't a word for cousin then what did the angel mean when he said these words? "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

Let's not forget that Jesus spoke aramaic and not english. and the Bible was not written in english, it is translated word for word without regard to the culture or custom or use of a word of the language it was originally written in.

So what! Not in all cases are the original transcripts translated word for word. Think before you write, you're not making any sense. What genius would it require for a translator to simply express the relationship between cousins? Why would brothers, or sisters as words be used instead? LOL

As per your scholars are they Catholic scholars by chance?

Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

If a Jewish mother had a daughter first, and a son afterward, did you know that the son would be called the first-born? Literally he wasn't, but as regards preeminence he was considered the first-born.

under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

So what!

Ezekiel 44:2
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

And if you were never taught by catholic scholars that this passage pointed to Mary's experience I guess you yourself would not have thought of it, correct? If I as much as randomly came across this passage I'd be at my wits end trying to figure out what is being said here.

Not once is the word virgin mentioned in that passage, or Messiah, yet you'd rather extrapolate a single passage blindly, because some priest gave his take on it through private interpretation. Interesting indeed.

Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary

Doesn't make a difference if its a son or the son. Isaiah did not say "the son is given", he said "unto us a son is given"

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. Why would she leave her other children behind, why would they leave their other siblings behind and go searching for Jesus alone.

When Jesus was 12 Mary was about 29, or there about. Certainly, brother Joseph must have known her intentions if she had decided not to have had any more children. Remember she got pregnant before she was married to Joseph. It was the angel who instructed Joseph not to abandon her.

Matthew 1:19, 20 say this, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

Imagine brother Joseph having fallen in love with this beautiful virgin was now preparing himself to put her away. How broken hearted he must have been, as one who had big family dreams.

Now listen to what Matthew said in verses 24 and 25, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, "

Notice the phrase, "knew her not till". So in other words Joseph made love to his wife some time Jesus was born. He gave her time to recover. Its not in me to speculate as to how soon after they had more children, but from the previous biblical passages I quoted from my opening post, together with Matthew 1:24,25, it is undeniably a fact that Mary had more children with Joseph.

John 19:26-27 - 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would Jesus commit Mary into the hands of a disciple if she had other children to care for her? it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Probably out of fear Jesus' siblings were nowhere to be found. This text is neither here nor there.

John 19:25 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene - I spoke of the other Mary related to Jesus, you see her here in scripture.

Yes I know of the different Marys.

Matt. 27:61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre ,

And I'd like to think that the second reference of Mary in this passage is Jesus' mother. I can't imgaine her not going all the way from the cross to the sepulchre.

28:1 - 1 And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

Same set of Marys again.

Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

And as was highlighted before James was referred to as the Lord's brethren. So without a doubt this mother of James and Joseph had to have been the same Mary mother of Jesus. It all adds up.

Mark 15:47 47 And Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid.

Similar to the above passage.

We know that the 'other Mary' is the one that accompanied Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre and here she is called mother of Joseph. We see from Matthew 27:56 that Mary the mother of Joseph is also Mary the mother of James.

Which can only point to one person, namely Mary mother of Jesus who had other children.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Really now! lol

Do not forget that there are several Mary's in the Bible.

Lol@ punish Mary with a barren womb. A barren womb is one that cannot conceive, Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus so how is she barren?

But that wasn't natural at all,

Look when you are ready to discuss the doctrine of the Church without contempt in your heart, you may do so, until then make sure you are not holding animosity in your heart because it will be clear for all to see and no one will take you seriously.

You say I have contempt and its way too early to pass judgement on me because I am simply questioning the teachings of the RCC.

If you're already getting upset wait until you see what further things I am coming with, and please don't call them fallacies, or lies until you see what is on the table.

On Catholic sacred tradition.

The Bible is sacred tradition, that is how we were able to tell who wrote what in the Bible and which books were legitimate to be included in the Bible. Without sacred tradition there is no Bible.

The Bible was not used to teach instead the scripture that was used to teach was the Old Testament, but the Bible as you know it today (Old Testament and New Testament) was not used.

The Bible tells us to hold on to tradition, that tradition is what the Church has held on to for centuries.

Here's scripture to prove so.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith. Those things are not less important.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - 9 I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world.

11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat

this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Philipians 4:9 Keep on doing what you have learned and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you. Nothing here about reading the scripture alone, we hold on to what Paul and the other apostles have taught us.

Colossians 4:16 And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea. - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, ” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? You can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation)

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, borthers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. - The Church teaches from the letter (Bible) and oral statement (sacred tradition not in the Bible, but supported by it)

2 Thess 3:6 We instruct you brothers in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition received from us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.-- the tradition doesn't stop with them and what they wrote, it passes on to future generations.

ok I'm tired, so dats all. Just wanted to point a few things out to you all about what scripture says about tradition before you all start pointing fingers, ok carry on.

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

The task for interpretation was given to the magisterium, this is true, but it doesn't say that you shouldn't use the Bible and that the Bible isn't authority. Since you want to quote from the catechism, do you mind telling us what the catechism says about the Bible please?

I'm sorry but who was buried alive and pulled asunder? Are protestants non-existent today? And weren't many heresies flying everywhere? If they were put asunder we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

Thank you for stating the obvious. That wasn't the question I asked initially. There is a vast difference between what came out of inspiration, that is the word of God, and what was invented by a group of men, called the cathechism.

Lol, the catechism is not used for instruction, it isn't used as the Word of God, it is not used in the Church as a preaching tool, and neither is it an interpretation of the Bible.
The catechism simply spells out doctrines so people won't be confused but these doctrines are from the Bible and oral tradition (sacred tradition) and it isn't compulsory to own one, you don't have to own one to be a faithful Catholic. Even the catechism will tell you that.

I stated that you should get rid of the contempt you hold towards Catholicism before you engage in this discussion, you wouldn't want to hold hatred in your heart.

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

You asked who gives us authority and I said God gives us authority and I provided you with biblical proof showing that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (authority). There is only one Church that was founded by Christ, that is the Catholic Church.
So to be honest, it has everything to do with it.

Well, hang around and you will see where I am heading. I hope for your sake you will hang around.

Oh trust me I will hang around and I will tell you what the Church really teaches. Believe me you're not the first one to have tried this, you just may know the truth after this and become Catholic.

I just hope you're willing to answer my questions as we move along. Most people tend to dodge them because it will require them to admit they are wrong.

Don't come here and lie, the Church does not teach any such thing. If anyone told you this they are lying. Be careful who calls themselves a Catholic, we already many on Nairaland who try to validate their statements by saying that they were once Catholics, but when we ask them questions about Catholicism they run away.

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

Well the authority comes from God, even the Bible will tell you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the Bible calls the Church (not the Bible) the foundation and pillar of truth.

Thank you for stating the obvious. That wasn't the question I asked initially. There is a vast difference between what came out of inspiration, that is the word of God, and what was invented by a group of men, called the cathechism.

1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

I hope you actually know what the traditions of the Church is before you start speaking false things.

Well, hang around and you will see where I am heading. I hope for your sake you will hang around.

Did God give the Bible authority to preach and spread the good news, cast out demons, and such or did he give it to the Church (the people)he founded? If you can answer this you can answer your question.

Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you earlier? And can you give me a honest answer this time around? Here is the question again, Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command, or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

That isn't a teaching of the Church. The teaching is that Mary fell asleep, which is death, and then was taken to heaven. There is biblical basis for it, go to Revelations 12: 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

This man child is Christ, while the woman here is mostly applied to the Church and the crown of twelve stars as the apostles, it can be applied, by allusion, to Mary. As we know that she is the one who gave birth to the man child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. Mary is seen as a type of Church (that's a discussion for another day)

And where in this passage did it say that Mary went to heaven?

Anyway, we know as Christians that Jesus on the Cross admonished John the beloved disciple to take care of Mary His mother. It is obvious she too died, and remains dead until Jesus comes back again and call her from the grave. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that remotely indicates that Mary was later resurrected from the dead.

Your task is to show from scriptures that Mary was resurrected. Any attempt at extra-biblical material will only prove the purpose of my thread true, and the purpose of my thread is to show that the RCC leaders have taken it up on themselves to attempt to replace God's truth with their doctrines and traditions.

Scholars will tell you that those brothers of Jesus most likely belong to Joseph from a different marriage. It is also possible that James was the son of another Mary related to Jesus, Mary the Mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary. In Aramaic there isn't a word for cousins, everyone is simply referred to as brother and sister, unless we are to assume that Mary had a sister also named Mary, I would say that Mary called her sister is a relative, a cousin.

So if there isn't a word for cousin then what did the angel mean when he said these words? "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

Let's not forget that Jesus spoke aramaic and not english. and the Bible was not written in english, it is translated word for word without regard to the culture or custom or use of a word of the language it was originally written in.

So what! Not in all cases are the original transcripts translated word for word. Think before you write, you're not making any sense. What genius would it require for a translator to simply express the relationship between cousins? Why would brothers, or sisters as words be used instead? LOL

As per your scholars are they Catholic scholars by chance?

Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

If a Jewish mother had a daughter first, and a son afterward, did you know that the son would be called the first-born? Literally he wasn't, but as regards preeminence he was considered the first-born.

under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

So what!

Ezekiel 44:2
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

And if you were never taught by catholic scholars that this passage pointed to Mary's experience I guess you yourself would not have thought of it, correct? If I as much as randomly came across this passage I'd be at my wits end trying to figure out what is being said here.

Not once is the word virgin mentioned in that passage, or Messiah, yet you'd rather extrapolate a single passage blindly, because some priest gave his take on it through private interpretation. Interesting indeed.

Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary

Doesn't make a difference if its a son or the son. Isaiah did not say "the son is given", he said "unto us a son is given"

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. Why would she leave her other children behind, why would they leave their other siblings behind and go searching for Jesus alone.

When Jesus was 12 Mary was about 29, or there about. Certainly, brother Joseph must have known her intentions if she had decided not to have had any more children. Remember she got pregnant before she was married to Joseph. It was the angel who instructed Joseph not to abandon her.

Matthew 1:19, 20 say this, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

Imagine brother Joseph having fallen in love with this beautiful virgin was now preparing himself to put her away. How broken hearted he must have been, as one who had big family dreams.

Now listen to what Matthew said in verses 24 and 25, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, "

Notice the phrase, "knew her not till". So in other words Joseph made love to his wife some time Jesus was born. He gave her time to recover. Its not in me to speculate as to how soon after they had more children, but from the previous biblical passages I quoted from my opening post, together with Matthew 1:24,25, it is undeniably a fact that Mary had more children with Joseph.

John 19:26-27 - 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would Jesus commit Mary into the hands of a disciple if she had other children to care for her? it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Probably out of fear Jesus' siblings were nowhere to be found. This text is neither here nor there.

John 19:25 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene - I spoke of the other Mary related to Jesus, you see her here in scripture.

Yes I know of the different Marys.

Matt. 27:61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre ,

And I'd like to think that the second reference of Mary in this passage is Jesus' mother. I can't imgaine her not going all the way from the cross to the sepulchre.

28:1 - 1 And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

Same set of Marys again.

Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

And as was highlighted before James was referred to as the Lord's brethren. So without a doubt this mother of James and Joseph had to have been the same Mary mother of Jesus. It all adds up.

Mark 15:47 47 And Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid.

Similar to the above passage.

We know that the 'other Mary' is the one that accompanied Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre and here she is called mother of Joseph. We see from Matthew 27:56 that Mary the mother of Joseph is also Mary the mother of James.

Which can only point to one person, namely Mary mother of Jesus who had other children.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Really now! lol

Do not forget that there are several Mary's in the Bible.

Lol@ punish Mary with a barren womb. A barren womb is one that cannot conceive, Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus so how is she barren?

But that wasn't natural at all,

Look when you are ready to discuss the doctrine of the Church without contempt in your heart, you may do so, until then make sure you are not holding animosity in your heart because it will be clear for all to see and no one will take you seriously.

You say I have contempt and its way too early to pass judgement on me because I am simply questioning the teachings of the RCC.

If you're already getting upset wait until you see what further things I am coming with, and please don't call them fallacies, or lies until you see what is on the table.

", the Blessed Virgin can do whatever she pleases both in heaven and on earth, At the command of Mary all obey, even God, God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands, Yes Mary is opnipotent, " - Glories pp 154-156.

Catholic leadership declares: "The pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and on earth" - Pope Pius V ,

"And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it" - Duties and Dignities of the Priests p. 27

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ,  Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father  to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." -Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895,  pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips.

"The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God." -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary 

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." - On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

", the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

  "The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth, by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i the Gloss "Extravagantes" o.f Pope John XXII come inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685.

Most of these quotes may seem old, but don't you dare think that the RCC no longer holds these blasphemous views. The quote below ocurred in 1958.

"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958).

Listen goodly people I don't take pleasure in all of this, but it is important to note that God's word has predicted that a power would rise up and attempt to take control of people's religious freedom. As it was predicted to have happened between AD538 - Ad1798, according to Daniel's and john's prophecy, so will this beast rise up again after its wound would be healed to once again wreak havoc upon all those Christians who will refuse to pay homage to its teachings, and dogmas.

The great reformers Martin Luther, Huss, Jerome, and others shed their blood to defend the cause of truth. We as modern day protestants have an obligation to carry on this great work of defending the scriptures above man's traditions.

A set of deceived deceivers that defined your Bible for you, so what does that make you? Or what do you think, the Bible just fell from the sky?

Lady,
they might have defined the bible we see today,but it is a fact that they did not write the bible. The fact is, even if they did define the books to make up the bible, their so called extra traditions and extra biblical practices should not be in contradiction with what the bible puts forward.
There is no place in the bible's accounts that the apostles ever contradicted themselves; therefore, the Catholic traditions would only have been valid if they were in equal harmony with the message from the bible.
And we all know;youself inclusive,that the Catholic traditions,extra biblical practices, are in heavy contradiction with the bible.

They could have presented the manual or guideline(the bible) but have derailed from keeping to it.

The Holy Bible is the final Authority for the believers.  This is what it has to say about those who preach and teach another gospel:

[list]
[li]"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."[/li]
[/list]

It is obvious who is preaching and teaching the doctrines of devils that are competing with the living Word of God.

[list]
[li]Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.[/li]
[/list]
1 Timothy 4:1-3

How I wish some people will come to this particular part of the forum and read up some intelligent post by some honourable forumites, I am so excited, thank you so much Bobbyaf

@ twftextra

Welcome to the thread. I hope that truth will prevail rather than pride. Religious pride as a barrier is one of the hardest barrier to surmount. I carry a specific burden for Catholics. Some of these people are some of the most sincere Christians you can find, but they are yet to discover the truths of God's word.

On Catholic sacred tradition.

The Bible is sacred tradition, that is how we were able to tell who wrote what in the Bible and which books were legitimate to be included in the Bible. Without sacred tradition there is no Bible.

Not all traditions are in themselves bad. My contention is not with tradition per se, but with an attempt by Catholic leadership to downplay the authority of God's word.

The Bible was not used to teach instead the scripture that was used to teach was the Old Testament, but the Bible as you know it today (Old Testament and New Testament) was not used.

The word bible means a collection of sacred writings, written by different authors. In the time of the apostles they only had the OT scriptures, of which was said of them, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16)

The Bible tells us to hold on to tradition, that tradition is what the Church has held on to for centuries. Here's scripture to prove so. Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

I think you're missing the point. Let me clarify matters for you. A tradition is a set of lifestyle practices resulting from a set of teachings, or indoctrinations, be they good or bad, that have become apart of a society's consciousness. Before one can practice, or live out something one would have to have learned it, or grown to appreciate it, over time. Christian tradition is no different, such as baptism, participating in the communion, and preaching, etc, are sound traditions that have passed on from God's people to us.

However, on the other hand, if a new set of doctrines, and teachings were introduced that are contradicting what was already taught by Jesus himself, or His apostles, then such traditions should be questioned and judged by a standard, and that standard is God's WORD. Something outside of human tradition has to serve as a check and balance. Even if the tradition practiced is intrinsically good , it cannot become the final arbiter of truth.

The tendency is for men to want to impose on others what they want them to learn, and often times its not for the good of those being taught, but for the teachers. It is all about power, and self-aggrandizement as is evident among catholic leaders. The Jewish leaders are a perfect example of a-once-called-out-people who because of their own twist on things made a complete mess of spiritual matters. In fact when the Messiah actually came they failed to see who He was, and for what purpose He came.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Am I debating who wrote from who didn't write?

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received

Only as long as any form of Oral tradition was in perfect harmony with the written word, were the apostles content in receiving them. The aim of my thread is not to discuss oral tradition, but the teachings and dogmas that have become a part of the RCC that run contrary to God's WORD, and WILL.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith. Those things are not less important.

Preserved? Did the apostles demand penance of their converts when they sinned, or did they direct them to Christ the perfect sacrifice, and High Priest who intercedes on the sinner's behalf in the heavenly sanctuary?

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - 9 I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world.

11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat

this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

Listen not everything became apart of the canon, and since you people boast of putting the canon together, then who do you have to blame if what you call important outside sources didn't get in the canon? I have no qualms with extra-biblical sources as long as those sources run in harmony with and submit to the standard of the source of truth, which is GOD"S WORD.

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

And for the umptheen times as long as those traditions submit to God's word.

Philipians 4:9 Keep on doing what you have learned and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you. Nothing here about reading the scripture alone, we hold on to what Paul and the other apostles have taught us.

I hope all those priests are paying attention to what this text is saying.

Colossians 4:16 And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea. - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

How can you be sure that it wasn't another apostle who wrote that epistle? There is nothing in this verse to indicate that someone outside the influence of inspiration wrote this epistle.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, ” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? You can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation)

Today its way different. The compilation of the NT letters didn't take place until about 60 or so years after they were first written. So what was inspired were read, and or told to the congregation orally. The fact is most of what were taught by the apostles came as a result of inspiration. So, whether or not they were compiled is unimportant. The major point that is running through this thread you're overlooking, and that is, the RCC has drastically sought to change the teachings that were laid down by Christ and the apostles.

1. The RCC has deliberately maintained the priesthood that had become null and void under the old Jewish system when Christ died on Calvary. No where in scripture does it teach that we must confess our sins unto priests. We are admonished to confess to Jesus Christ as our High Priest in heaven, but this is what your magesterium believes to be more important than God's word, "And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it." -Liguori, «Duties and Dignities of the Priest», p.27

2. They have placed Mary as the 4th member of the God-Head giving a dead person the power to make intercession for sinners.

---"God has entrusted the keys and treasures of heaven to Mary." Thomas Aquinas.

---"No one ever finds Christ but with and through Mary. Whoever seeks Christ apart from Mary seeks Him in vain." St. Bonaventure

---"What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan." Pope Pius Xl

Are those what you assert to be a continuation of the teachings and traditions of the apostles?

@Pastor Bobby

Small world eh?? Hope this rings a bell (judge at the Jamaica Idol)

I sent something to you at your MSN (first one) email Address. It's regarding a project I am working on within Caribbean Countries. May we discuss at my expense. The email is from Sonya. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS. CHECK YOUR EMAIL

Thanks in advance

Lady,
they might have defined the bible we see today,but it is a fact that they did not write the bible. The fact is, even if they did define the books to make up the bible, their so called extra traditions and extra biblical practices should not be in contradiction with what the bible puts forward.
There is no place in the bible's accounts that the apostles ever contradicted themselves; therefore, the Catholic traditions would only have been valid if they were in equal harmony with the message from the bible.
And we all know;youself inclusive,that the Catholic traditions,extra biblical practices, are in heavy contradiction with the bible.

They could have presented the manual or guideline(the bible) but have derailed from keeping to it

The Catholic traditions are not contradictory to the Bible, and it is a known fact that the apostles were Catholic. If not would you mind telling me what happened to the Church that Christ founded? If something did happen to it, then wouldn't that make Jesus a liar when he says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church.

Do you seriously think the Church would put together a canon and use a canon that is contradictory to its belief? How stupid would that be?

How do you think the Bible came together? They just found a set of books and decided to call it scripture? Who gave them the authority to call it scripture and why do you regard those set of books in the Bible as scripture?
If the Church is so infallible, how can she define something that is infallible?

Have you read the other writings of the early church, and I'm not talking about the gnostic gospels that were just discovered?

The traditions of the Church have not changed since the apostles, what they handed on to us is what you see, and I presented scripture from above that proves that there were traditions that were handed down not just written down but were passed down orally? How do you know which ones were passed down orally?

The only people that don't go with the Bible are protestants.

I see Bobbyaf praised Martin Luther, I wonder what he thinks about Martin Luther challenging the apostle Paul and disagreeing with Paul's writings, originally from the Bible, he removed the books of James, Revelation and several others. The protestants later on added it, I wonder why? Why didn't you guys stick to what Martin Luther stated?

I also have to ask you, how did the apostles teach before the New Testament became canon by the Church?

Do you believe in solely by the scriptures, if so, then why, because scripture disproves scripture alone?

The difference between the Catholic church and everyone else is that we are right, and we are the ones that can logically explain the Bible. We are the ones that don't contradict ourselves with scripture.

Here's what protestants usually do, they quote passages to support their view and the we Catholics quote scriptures to support our view, so it seems that the scriptures are contradictory when infact they are not. The contradiction comes from the interpretations and you can't possibly think we put together a Bible we cannot interpret.

What about the Church's teachings do you find contradictory and what do you think we deviated from? If I show you that these teachings of the Church have actually been taught since the founding of the Church what would you say?

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

And how did he preach the gospel? Did he write it down and ask them to read and interpret for themselves.

Look if you guys think we are wrong can you please go through the passages I provided and show me what they actually mean?

Tell me how those passages prove that you should go by Bible alone.

And can someone please answer my questions?

Did God give the Bible authority or did he give the authority to the Church?

Plain and simple, answer my questions and we will get somewhere.

Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you earlier? And can you give me a honest answer this time around? Here is the question again, Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command, or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

No Church has the authority to change any teaching of Christ. The only Church that has not changed the teaching of Christ is the Catholic Church. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you don't know fully the teaching of Christ and that they weren't all written in the Bible? Oh yeah that's right John tells us that many things that were done by Christ were not written down.

The Church has the authority to interpret scripture (that it wrote and defined as scripture) and teach it to its members, use it to address every situation that the Church faces in every age or era.

And where in this passage did it say that Mary went to heaven?

And where in the Bible does it say that unless it is written down it isn't true.

The passage shows the woman who gave birth to the Messiah in the temple of God as the ark of the covenant. Who gave birth to the messiah?

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

Oh let us be honest, it has everything to do with Catholic tradition, this passage here tells you that the Church is the authority. If the Church did not have a canon who would you listen to?

Anyway, we know as Christians that Jesus on the Cross admonished John the beloved disciple to take care of Mary His mother. It is obvious she too died, and remains dead until Jesus comes back again and call her from the grave. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that remotely indicates that Mary was later resurrected from the dead.

So who is the woman that gave birth to the messiah that is in the book of Revelations? When you answer this question it would lead to another mystery of Christ.
How disrespectful of Christ to allow his mother's body to rot like the rest of us. He would dishonour her if he did. How can he be against himself?

Your task is to show from scriptures that Mary was resurrected. Any attempt at extra-biblical material will only prove the purpose of my thread true, and the purpose of my thread is to show that the RCC leaders have taken it up on themselves to attempt to replace God's truth with their doctrines and traditions.

And I show you from Revelations that Mary appears in the book of Revelation as the ark of the covenant. Anyone who can reason will see that. We also see the apostles in heaven in the book of Revelations, if the apostles can make it to heaven, do you expect God to allow his mother to be in the ground?

So if there isn't a word for cousin then what did the angel mean when he said these words? "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

The word translated is actually kinswoman, but thanks to sacred tradition of knowing that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Bible replaces kinswoman for cousin. There really isn't a word for cousin in aramaic, and the gospel was written in Greek, don't forget that. If you think I am lying, go ahead and research it and see for yourself, but make sure you let me know what you find.

So what! Not in all cases are the original transcripts translated word for word. Think before you write, you're not making any sense. What genius would it require for a translator to simply express the relationship between cousins? Why would brothers, or sisters as words be used instead? LOL

Because when those people speak of Jesus' brothers they speak aramaic and there is no word for cousin in aramaic. There are also instances in the Bible where the word brother is used for cousins, take a look at Lot and Abraham.

As per your scholars are they Catholic scholars by chance?

Some are and some are not, I take it you haven't done any research on these things and you are only spewing what comes to mind. Well my advice to you is to actually ask scholars and see.

If a Jewish mother had a daughter first, and a son afterward, did you know that the son would be called the first-born? Literally he wasn't, but as regards preeminence he was considered the first-born.

Lol, you must really be grasping at straws, I already showed you that first-born refers to whomever opens the womb of the woman, so the daughter is actually called first-born and the son is called first-born son.

What would you say about a woman who has a daughter only, would you say that she doesn't have a first-born?
So she hasn't given birth?

So what!

So first born does not require a second born.

And if you were never taught by catholic scholars that this passage pointed to Mary's experience I guess you yourself would not have thought of it, correct? If I as much as randomly came across this passage I'd be at my wits end trying to figure out what is being said here.

Well then you better get on that theology.
How do you know the other prophecies? Did you pick up the Bible and automatically start knowing what the prophecies were?

Not once is the word virgin mentioned in that passage, or Messiah, yet you'd rather extrapolate a single passage blindly, because some priest gave his take on it through private interpretation. Interesting indeed

Lol, so unless the word virgin and messiah is used it cannot be a prophecy?
You do know that Jesus is Lord, and that there are plenty of passages that do not say messiah or virgin that refers to Christ and Mary?

Doesn't make a difference if its a son or the son. Isaiah did not say "the son is given", he said "unto us a son is given"

In the context of Isaiah we know that the passage is talking about one person that would come, in the context of Mary we know that there if we say the son we refer to one son and if we say a son we assume there is more than one son.

Imagine brother Joseph having fallen in love with this beautiful virgin was now preparing himself to put her away. How broken hearted he must have been, as one who had big family dreams.

Thank God Joseph isn't presumptous and doesn't consider himself equal to God that he would touch the womb God dwelt in. Mary is the ark of the covenant and no man can touch the ark as you well know.

Notice the phrase, "knew her not till". So in other words Joseph made love to his wife some time Jesus was born. He gave her time to recover. Its not in me to speculate as to how soon after they had more children, but from the previous biblical passages I quoted from my opening post, together with Matthew 1:24,25, it is undeniably a fact that Mary had more children with Joseph.

Stop forgetting that the Bible was not written in English, but even at that knowing her not till does not imply that he had sexual relations with her. "not until" does not mean "did not, until after"

the greek word used there is "heos"

I have to go, I will be back to finish.

No Church has the authority to change any teaching of Christ. The only Church that has not changed the teaching of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Christ taught that no man should be called Father on earth for there is one Father above, yet the change came when the RCC referred to their priests as Fathers. Some are even referred to as "Holy Father"

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you don't know fully the teaching of Christ and that they weren't all written in the Bible? Oh yeah that's right John tells us that many things that were done by Christ were not written down.

What difference does it make? If you are having problems with, and can barely handle what is revealed, can you imagine the kind of remarks and excuses you'd be making now, on top of what you're already making? Why speculate about what was not revealed? It doesn't help to wonder what might have been, does it?

The Church has the authority to interpret scripture (that it wrote and defined as scripture) and teach it to its members, use it to address every situation that the Church faces in every age or era.

The church for your information comprises both clergy and laity. The clergy's job is to act as a guide, and an example to its members in reading and studying the bible. All the catholic church did was to stifle people's attempt to understand the bible. Have you forgotten so quickly what some were burnt to the stake? It was simply because they read the bible.

All the church did was to translate to some extent from the original autographs, and even those translations had their inbuilt biases. In fact I'd go further to say that for most of the centuries, referred to as the Dark Ages, only the priests were allowed to understand and interpret the bible. Most were done in the Latin Vulgate which the ordinary people could not understand. Priests and friars were thus able to rob the people of the little that they possessed through indulgences. These poor people had to pay in order to secure their loved ones' removal from purgatory.

And where in the Bible does it say that unless it is written down it isn't true. The passage shows the woman who gave birth to the Messiah in the temple of God as the ark of the covenant. Who gave birth to the messiah?

This is the kind of ridiculous response I am expecting anyway. I am not surprised you have no clue about the matter. Don't forget Lady that people are following this thread.

First and foremost the woman is a symbol of the church, and in no way symbolizes Mary. The God's church is often compared to a bride with Christ being the bridegroom. Now let us proceed to follow through the rest of the 12th chapter of Revelation. In summary John is simply relating to a vision he received showing the part the church played in the coming of the Messiah, and Satan's attempt at destroying Him. In fact John happily reveals the outcome of the victory of Christ by saying that He was quickly taken up to heaven, and out of arms way.

What happens next even proves additionally that the woman in no way went to heaven. An attempt to persecute her was initiated by Satan when he saw that his plan to gain the victory over Christ failed. This woman, God's true church was protected during 1260 years from both pagan Rome initially, and papal Rome. (The Papacy)

If this woman really represented Mary then why would verse 17 refer to us as her remnant seed according to these verses: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

No where in scripture is Mary used to represent God's church. She herself has been a member. This kind of symbolism strongly represents rather the church, than a literal Mary. In the last days this church, as was correctly symbolized by the woman will continue to possess Christians who will be identified as those who keep God's commandments and have His testimony. They will not be apart of Babylon, and hence will become a target for persecution.

So who is the woman that gave birth to the messiah that is in the book of Revelations? When you answer this question it would lead to another mystery of Christ. How disrespectful of Christ to allow his mother's body to rot like the rest of us. He would dishonour her if he did. How can he be against himself?

See above for who the woman is, You're saying that Christ would have dishonored His mother if He had allowed her to rot in the grave. My answer is simply this. Death cannot prevent the resurrection. Mary like everyone else was born in sin. Mary like everyone else repented and was forgiven. She was only a chosen vessel for God's Son which brought some degree of favor on her, and nothing more.

And I show you from Revelations that Mary appears in the book of Revelation as the ark of the covenant. Anyone who can reason will see that. We also see the apostles in heaven in the book of Revelations, if the apostles can make it to heaven, do you expect God to allow his mother to be in the ground?

You're yet to show and explain the relevant scriptures. Besides, why would Paul and Peter speak of a resurrection if they were not included? Why does Paul teach that death is a sleep in the grave and that all God's children will be resurrected? Several times in John do we find Jesus saying that at the last day His people will hear His voice and arise from the dead. Do you expect the saints to first go to heaven, and after Jesus comes the second time come back to the grave to be resurrected formally?

Mary is no Ark of the covenant. That is a Catholic fallacy. Long before Mary was even concieved, God revealed to Moses what the heavenly sanctuary looked like. He ws instructed to build an earthly copy just like the one God had revealed to him on mount Sinai. St. Paul in the book of Hebrews makes mention of it, and John the beloved disciple saw the original Ark of the covenant in heaven. Neither of the two men has even remotely ascribed it to Mary. Yet you do.

You'd think that most of what the Catholic leaders taught would have at least be mentioned or hinted at, but what we see is wild speculation.

The word translated is actually kinswoman, but thanks to sacred tradition of knowing that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Bible replaces kinswoman for cousin. There really isn't a word for cousin in aramaic, and the gospel was written in Greek, don't forget that. If you think I am lying, go ahead and research it and see for yourself, but make sure you let me know what you find.

Let me ask you a simple question. Did the Jews back then in the time of Christ knew the difference between the terms "brother" and "cousin"? Are you telling the fora that there wasn't a way for people to distinguish familial terms such as cousins and brothers? So according to your theory the word cousin means kinswoman. Earlier you made it clear that when we see the word brethren it really means cousins. Remember? So in other words we can't really trust what the Catholics have canonized then.

Are you saying to us that in the Aramaic language no one could correctly express the difference between the children from one sister, versus the children from another sister in the same family line? Wow!

Another point I'd like to make is that if Catholic Scholars, and others, are able to come up with this idea that there was no Aramaic word for cousin, then obviously the Greeks discovered the same problem, if it were true, and would have had to find a word in order to fill the deficiency. The Greeks do have a word for cousin. It is called anepsios

A great part of being able to translate from one language to another is not hinged only on the failure of the mother language to be deficient in vocabulary. The target language has means of making up for any supposedly shortage. Thoughts and ideas are what is being translated. So if in my language I am able to show familial relationship between cousins as we have come to now it, but the mother language cannot, then because I know of the need to express such a relation during the translation process, what would logically prevent me from using the Greek word to express it?

Honestly I find the whole thing so convenient.

These are the perilous times prophesied in 1Tim.4:1-7 which is the mystery of iniquity.

1. Departing from the faith or apostacy. We are warned to take heed, lest our hearts become evil and unbelieving which causes us to depart from God Heb.3:12

2. Giving heed to seducing spirits. These are seducing demons that entice to surrender chastity. Demons are charged with carrying out the programme of enticement to forfeit virtues.

3. Giving heed to doctrines of devils. These demons seduce people to depart from holy living and to accept doctrines that will damn their souls in hell. Men and women who pretend inspiration and revelation and false teachers of all kinds of religion are the agents of demons. 2Cor.11:14-15

4. Speaking lies in hypocrisy. These are speakers of lies in pretended revelations, and acting self denials and mortification of the flesh in order to prove their false doctrines to be truth.

5. Having the conscience seared with a hot iron. Their hearts are callous, withered and hardened, and are insensible to right and wrong. It has been seared by their false doctrine.

6. Forbidding to marry. There are some religions that forbid or discourage marriage to anyone among their laymen or clergy. The Lord says marriage is honourable to all and the bed undefiled Heb.13:4; 1Cor.7 .

7. Commanding to abstain from meats. Such unscriptural commanding in some so called churches of certain food and meats under the new covenant is initiated by demons. Gen.9:1-7; Rom.14:1-6.

Greetings,

Posted by: Bobbyaf

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

What you posted above is partly true.  Yes the magisterium of the Church (the Pope and bishops in communion with him) has been given the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition.  We Catholics believe that this authority has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.  This authority in interpreting the Word of God is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16 - Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me.)

This authority does not give the bishops the right to create doctrine and dogma at whim.  The bishops are not meant to be above the Word of God.  On the contrary, they are meant to be its servants and are only to be concerned with teaching what has been handed down (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) on to it.  They are to listen to, guard with dedication and expound it faithfully (with the help of the Holy Spirit).  All that is part of our belief is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

These are you questions:

What do you think is the source of authority? The RCC's traditions, or is it God's word?

The source of authority to interpret the Word of God and Sacred Tradition is Jesus Christ Himself.

Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

No human being has the right to teach simply because the Pope, or prelate says so.  The magisterium and the faithful united with it are to teach, protect, and propagate the teachings handed down to us from the apostles (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, lay people (the faithful) have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.

Case in point is the teaching that Mary went straight to heaven without seeing death. On what basis should we believe such a teaching when there is no biblical basis for it?

What you posted above is not true.  This is what we believe about the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.  The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians."

966 Catechism of the Catholic Church

Would you accept such a teaching because it may sound appealing?

No…we accept the teachings by way of faith.  Interesting dialogue. . . .it seems like there are a lot of misconceptions that need to be cleared up.  To Bobbyaf et al, I will try to address some of you all's concerns.  I might say though, a lot of what you guys (Bobbyaf et al) are saying has been addressed before.  In short, if you google these same arguments you will readily find answers (Catholic ones) to them.  But, I guess it doesn't hurt to discuss them here.  Peace. . . .

anther State vs Lady case here?

It doesnt matter how much evidence you produce . . . u're not going to win.

The Catholic traditions are not contradictory to the Bible, and it is a known fact that the apostles were Catholic. If not would you mind telling me what happened to the Church that Christ founded? If something did happen to it, then wouldn't that make Jesus a liar when he says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church.

Lady,

It is a known fact that the apostles were Catholic?
A known fact to whom?
Most likely a Catholic fact and not a Christian fact.
If they were certainly Catholic,we probably would not be arguing or debating here.

You keep talking about the oral stuff the apostles said.It is only common sense to know that all the oral stuff the apostles spoke about was the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the written stuff which is embodied in the bible is also the gospel of Jesus Christ.Everything they said was about the complete message of the gospel of Christ and the written stuff says everything about that complete message.The principles about the life in Christ are contained in the bible.

All other extra things that were said and might not have been written have been taken care of by the totality of the written epistles and 4 gospels.Saying that the written message/Gospel we have through the bible is not complete or enough for us is equal to saying that the apostles were lying to us because the message that is gotten from the bible when properly interpreted is that :All that we need to walk with Christ is embodied in the bible.

You talk about traditions.The traditions the apostles encouraged were traditions that were borne out of the totality of the complete gospel message which we have today. Any tradition that does not comform completely with the Gospel is utter balderdash and should be thrown away.

Be honest and u should know that most of the Catholic traditions are contradicting what we have as the gospel of Christ.

In the end times many we be deceived and deceive in turn many more.

Hello All,

Posted by: Bobbyaf

Christ taught that no man should be called Father on earth for there is one Father above, yet the change came when the RCC referred to their priests as Fathers. Some are even referred to as "Holy Father"

Did you bother to read what you just posted or did you cut and paste this from somewhere else?  How is the practice of calling priests father against the teachings of the Bible?  If you’re referring to Mt 23:8-10 (see below) then you are taking that passage out of context. 

Mt 23:8-10 You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.  You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.  Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

If this passage was meant to be taken literally, then we all offend the Scripture. We all have used "father" to designate our birth father; and "teacher," our instructors at school.  The meaning of that scripture is that no person should be given the respect and honor due ultimately to God the Father.  The title “Holy Father” is only a title and refers to the office of the Pope and not necessarily the person himself.  The Pope occupies the chair of Peter (the leader of the Apostles and the first Pope) and because of that we refer to him as “Holy Father”.  The adjective ‘Holy’ is also used as titles for other prominent figures and people within the Church.  In many cases the word “Saint” is used, which means the same thing as ‘Holy” (e.g., Saint Theresa, Saint Martin, Saint whoever).  Catholic Christians call the priests “father with the same sense understood by Paul (see below).

1 Cor 4:14-16 I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.

1 Thess 2:11-12 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

You posted:

What difference does it make? If you are having problems with, and can barely handle what is revealed, can you imagine the kind of remarks and excuses you'd be making now, on top of what you're already making? Why speculate about what was not revealed? It doesn't help to wonder what might have been, does it?

Well, we Catholics don’t see it as speculation, but rather revealed truth.  What many people don’t realize is that the Church uses Sacred Tradition (that oral Tradition handed down to us from the apostles) to interpret Sacred Scripture (with the help of the Holy Spirit).

You posted:

The church for your information comprises both clergy and laity. The clergy's job is to act as a guide, and an example to its members in reading and studying the bible. All the catholic church did was to stifle people's attempt to understand the bible. Have you forgotten so quickly what some were burnt to the stake? It was simply because they read the bible.

Although there has been grave wrongs committed by members of the Catholic Church, I would have you know that some of the greatest Biblical scholars (I would even say the greatest Biblical scholars) were Catholics (e.g., St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St Thomas Aquinas, Blessed Cardinal Newman, and the list goes on and on).  For you to say that the Catholic Church stifled people’s attempt to understand the Bible full stop, is nonsense.  Like I said above, although there were many wrongs committed by members of the Church, the mere fact that you believe the Bible is the Word of God is because of the Catholic Church.

You posted:

All the church did was to translate to some extent from the original autographs, and even those translations had their inbuilt biases. In fact I'd go further to say that for most of the centuries, referred to as the Dark Ages, only the priests were allowed to understand and interpret the bible. Most were done in the Latin Vulgate which the ordinary people could not understand.  Priests and friars were thus able to rob the people of the little that they possessed through indulgences. These poor people had to pay in order to secure their loved ones' removal from purgatory.

The Catholic Church safe guarded the writings of the apostles, transcribed them, translated them into the vernacular (Latin), and compiled them into the present day canon of the Bible.  My friend, give the Catholics more credit than what you are giving.  Latin was the vernacular of Europe for sometime.  Most of the European languages are based on Latin.  The masses were not totally clueless about the scriptures (give them credit).  In addition, during the Middle Ages (Dark Ages) the learned were mostly the ones who could read before the invention of the printing press.  Even if Bibles were made in all the various vernaculars and dialects of Europe, it would have been no use because not everyone could read.  The topic of selling indulgences for gain was very wrong and I’m sure God will punish those who participated in that wrong doing.

Will continue later. . . .

Who are the true Christains if i may ask? the catholics or the protestants? This is a very funny thread.

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993: “Baptism is necessary for salvation ,  the Church does not know of any [other] means . . . that assures entry into eternal beatitude , ”

“,  Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians” (Catechism 1271).

The above contradicts the bible:

Romans 5:1-2
(1)  Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
(2)  By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 3:24-28
(24)  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
(25)  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(26)  To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(27)  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28)  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Galatians 2:16
(16)  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:26
(26)  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The bible's accounts show that we are justified/saved by faith in Jesus Christ which does not agree with being justified by faith in Baptism as put forward by Cathecism.

Clear contradiction,won't you say?!!

“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

“If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are NOT  NECESSARY FOR SALVATION ,  but that without them ,  men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification ,  LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Trent, 7th ses., Canon 4)

“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification let him be anathema” (Council of Trent)

These above also contradict the bible.
Compare with:

Romans 4:5(KJV)
(5)  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:5(ISV)
(5)  However, to someone who does not work, but simply believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Romans 4:5(CEV)
(5)  But you cannot make God accept you because of something you do. God accepts sinners only because they have faith in him.


More contradiction:

“If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of Justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 30. Shroeder, H.J., Tan Books, 1978, p. 46. The Council of Trent was reaffirmed by Vatican I and II --1960)

Compare with:

Acts 13:37-39
(37)  But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
(38  Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
(39)  And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Romans 4:5-8
(5)  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
(6)  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
(7)  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
(8  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Colossians 2:13
(13)  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


"No one can know with the certainty of faith ,  that he has obtained the grace of God [anathema to all who claim they know]” (Trent, 6th Ses., Chap. N.)

Another contradiction with the bible.
Compare with:

1 John 5:13
(13)  I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

@ Omenuko

Did you bother to read what you just posted or did you cut and paste this from somewhere else? How is the practice of calling priests father against the teachings of the Bible? If you’re referring to Mt 23:8-10 (see below) then you are taking that passage out of context.

Defensive huh! Christ spoke in a spiritual sense when He said we should call no man father. Common sense alone dictates that He was not referring to earthly father. He wasn't stupid.

Quote
Mt 23:8-10 You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

If this passage was meant to be taken literally, then we all offend the Scripture. We all have used "father" to designate our birth father; and "teacher," our instructors at school. The meaning of that scripture is that no person should be given the respect and honor due ultimately to God the Father. The title “Holy Father” is only a title and refers to the office of the Pope and not necessarily the person himself. The Pope occupies the chair of Peter (the leader of the Apostles and the first Pope) and because of that we refer to him as “Holy Father”. The adjective ‘Holy’ is also used as titles for other prominent figures and people within the Church. In many cases the word “Saint” is used, which means the same thing as ‘Holy” (e.g., Saint Theresa, Saint Martin, Saint whoever). Catholic Christians call the priests “father with the same sense understood by Paul (see below).

Since the text in question had a spiritual connotation then I need not worry about offending the scripture. What are the roles of fathers, teachers, etc, in the context in which Christ reasoned? They cannot be the end all. Christ and His Holy Spirit in accordance with the scriptures are responsible for whatever we learn as it relates to our salvation. We must never surrender our ability to anyone person or persons with regards to how our salvation is accomplished. A case in point why Jesus made sure to have spoken those words was because He saw in advance the pomp and pride that are associated with the likes of Catholic leadership:

", God Himself descends on the altar, that he comes whenever they call Him; and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move Him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle, expose Him on the altar, or carry Him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat His flesh, and give Him for the food of others. ;Oh how great is their power!' - The Dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p. 26,27

1 Cor 4:14-16 I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.

Quite a different matter all together. You and I know that there is a vast difference in how Paul viewed himself, and how catholic leaders view themselves. The above quote vis a vis the Eucharist, and how it is used to demoralize God is a perfect example.

1 Thess 2:11-12 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

If anything this is not a very good text for Catholics to quote, if you get the gist. I certainly wouldn't want a celebate man to be around young men nourishing and encouraging them. If smoking and drinking can be considered as conducting oneself as being worthy of God, then majority of Catholic priests are certainly doing an excellent job.

Well, we Catholics don’t see it as speculation, but rather revealed truth. What many people don’t realize is that the Church uses Sacred Tradition (that oral Tradition handed down to us from the apostles) to interpret Sacred Scripture (with the help of the Holy Spirit).

Revealed truth should not contradict the written scriptures. If there was anything sacred about the RCC's traditions then how is it over 100 million innocent bible-believing Christians perished simply because they preferred reading the bible, than listen to Catholic fables? How is it that these words could ever proceed from their own lips as quoted below?

"The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity." -The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, "Protestantism", Section III A - Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone", Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912 by Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. (online source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm )

"Who can worthily thank thee and adequately praise thee, oh Blessed Virgin, who by thy fiat has saved a lost world." St. Augustine

"The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary." Pope Pius IX

You quoted

Although there has been grave wrongs committed by members of the Catholic Church, I would have you know that some of the greatest Biblical scholars (I would even say the greatest Biblical scholars) were Catholics (e.g., St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St Thomas Aquinas, Blessed Cardinal Newman, and the list goes on and on). For you to say that the Catholic Church stifled people’s attempt to understand the Bible full stop, is nonsense. Like I said above, although there were many wrongs committed by members of the Church, the mere fact that you believe the Bible is the Word of God is because of the Catholic Church.

There continues to be grave wrongs, and all you have to boast about is Catholic scholars? Stop making claims about catholic scholars being responsible for the bible. God is responsible for preserving His words. Stop taking the credit. Let me tell you who those scholars really are. They are infiltrators. They simply use their education to penetrate the most powerful organizations so as to get a foothold with the ultimate goal of getting the powerful governments to pay homage to the pope. How is it that an organization that claims to have continued the apostles' doctrines has as its head a political figure? Were you aware that each country sends an ambassador to the Vatican, and that the Vatican is a state/country whose political head is the pope? Was this what Christ had in mind when He called the apostles to evangelize?

My God Peter was crucified upside down, and Paul was beheaded. Most of the apostles were killed. Compare that to the comfort of the Vatican city. Peter whom you call the first pope never lived the easy life that popes live ever since the papacy came into existence. Can you recall when there were three popes fighting over power? Don't even go there.

The Catholic Church safe guarded the writings of the apostles, transcribed them, translated them into the vernacular (Latin), and compiled them into the present day canon of the Bible. My friend, give the Catholics more credit than what you are giving. Latin was the vernacular of Europe for sometime. Most of the European languages are based on Latin. The masses were not totally clueless about the scriptures (give them credit). In addition, during the Middle Ages (Dark Ages) the learned were mostly the ones who could read before the invention of the printing press. Even if Bibles were made in all the various vernaculars and dialects of Europe, it would have been no use because not everyone could read. The topic of selling indulgences for gain was very wrong and I’m sure God will punish those who participated in that wrong doing.

Read this!

The decree set forth in the year 1229 A.D. by the Council of Valencia, places Bible on The Index of Forbidden Books. The doctrine withholds "it is forbidden for laymen (common man) to read the Old and New Testaments. - We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular." "The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out." Council Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX, Anno. Chr. 1229

Will continue later. . . .

I hope so,

Brethren Greetings,

@Bobbyaf

Its very late over here, just came back from hanging with friends. But before we continue, I just want to ask where are you getting these quotes? Are you just copying and pasting them from another site or are they a result of your research and study. Many of the quotes that you are posting (the ones portraying Catholics) seem to be out of context.

Please those of you criticizing the catholic church ,I have few questions for you,

What happened to the church left by the apostles?

what year were they obliterated and by whom?

When did the roman Catholics take over and who was he first pope?

Remember Jesus said ''the gates of hell shall NEVER prevail against it(his church)''

so how come the early church were obliterated by the roman catholics or is Jesus telling a lie?