₦airaland Forum

SonofElElyonRet:
The Catholic church isn't the early church dude. The Catholic church is more accurately described as the ROMAN Catholic church and was established when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity. It was infused with elements of the other religions being practised at that time... you are the one that needs to do your research dude! You don't know your church. Nowhere in the bible do you have the prefix "Saint" in front of the names of the early church fathers!

Thanks for your response brother.
Firstly, I admire your little knowledge of the origins , though you need to keep studying.

Please I will like to ask you the period within which you think this "early church" which was not Catholic existed prior to the Catholic church as you claim. May I know the years? Between A.D (Anno Domini) 33 and when before the Catholic church emerged(as you claimed).. ?

2ndly, what happened to that early church did it disappear? Before the Catholic church came about(AYC) I mean if not? Where is it today so that we can trace back to the origins. At least if you say Israel today, there is a trace through the years backwards, through Nazism, The Crusades, the Rise of Islam, The Roman conquest of Palestine, the dispersal of the Jews, Greek Conquest, Persians, Babylonian conquest, Assyrian conquest, The divided kingdom( the era of the Kings and prophets).. We then see a chain-link. From early times to modern day Jews. This is just what I wanna establish for the same early church (which you say wasn't Catholic).

Where in the Bible do you have the prefix Pastor Or General Overseer since everything must be in the Bible?

livebullet:
Thanks for your response brother.
Firstly, I admire your little knowledge of the origins , though you need to keep studying.

Please I will like to ask you the period within which you think this "early church" which was not Catholic existed prior to the Catholic church as you claim. May I know the years? Between A.D (Anno Domini) 33 and when before the Catholic church emerged(as you claimed).. ?

2ndly, what happened to that early church did it disappear? Before the Catholic church came about(AYC) I mean if not? Where is it today so that we can trace back to the origins. At least if you say Israel today, there is a trace through the years backwards, through Nazism, The Crusades, the Rise of Islam, The Roman conquest of Palestine, the dispersal of the Jews, Greek Conquest, Persians, Babylonian conquest, Assyrian conquest, The divided kingdom( the era of the Kings and prophets).. We then see a chain-link. From early times to modern day Jews. This is just what I wanna establish for the same early church (which you say wasn't Catholic).

Where in the Bible do you have the prefix Pastor Or General Overseer since everything must be in the Bible?

Rome accepted Christianity in 313AD and it was after that time that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was founded..
Regarding the "Saint" Prefix, you started it by insisting must attach same to Luke's name..

SonofElElyonRet:
The Catholic church isn't the early church dude. The Catholic church is more accurately described as the ROMAN Catholic church and was established when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity. It was infused with elements of the other religions being practised at that time... you are the one that needs to do your research dude! You don't know your church. Nowhere in the bible do you have the prefix "Saint" in front of the names of the early church fathers!

You do realise that the Catholic church was never described as Roman Catholic until the Anglicans broke off after the reformation - 16th century? Where is the early church you refer to? They must have a different list of bishops than the catholic church ones, shay? Please enlighten us on the list of its bishops and reference to any of their writings in the 1st 3 centuries.

SonofElElyonRet:
Rome accepted Christianity in 313AD and it was after that time that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was founded..
Regarding the "Saint" Prefix, you started it by insisting must attach same to Luke's name..

Christianity became state religion across the Roman Empire (East and West) after the Edict of Thesalonica 380. Are you stating that this Christianity was different from the christianity and church that already existed before the persecutions ended in 313AD? Where exactly did the bishops that came together at Nicea 325 come from?
Where is this different early church you seem to refer to?

btoks:
You do realise that the Catholic church was never described as Roman Catholic until the Anglicans broke off after the reformation - 16th century? Where is the early church you refer to? They must have a different list of bishops than the catholic church ones, shay? Please enlighten us on the list of its bishops and reference to any of their writings in the 1st 3 centuries.

You'll need to carry out your own research into the influence and "reforms" of the Roman empire that resulted in the Roman Catholic church. Practices that the apostles and early fathers neither approved nor adopted... queen of heaven/mariolatry, graven images in worship, celibacy as a command to priests, flagellation, and subsequent strange practices

SonofElElyonRet:
You'll need to carry out your own research into the influence and "reforms" of the Roman empire that resulted in the Roman Catholic church. Practices that the apostles and early fathers neither approved nor adopted... queen of heaven/mariolatry, graven images in worship, celibacy as a command to priests, flagellation, and subsequent strange practices

It's amazing how history can be suddenly distorted to suit 21st century narratives!!
You'll find that the early church made decisions via councils; groups that didn't accept these decisions (e.g. oriental churches) split off from the original church known as catholic.
While Roman emperors tried to have their way ( e.g. Constatine II who tried to force Pope Liberius in 350s to sign up to the Arian Heresy by condemning Athanasius of Alexandria), ultimately it was the bishops of the church that decided doctrines as they have the power to bind and loose. The church decided at the 2nd Council of Nicaea that images can be venerated not worshipped (in response to the iconoclast controversy- ironically from some emperors)
Decisions around Mary's approved titles where in response to Arian Heresies and certainly to confirm the divinity of Jesus
Celibacy is not a dogma but a discipline to ensure priests are commited to their ministries amongst other reasons ( see Jesus talknabout this here Matt 19:10–12) . This discipline could be changed in theory - in fact, the Eastern Catholic priests are not obligated to be celibate if they've been ordained as married priests. By the way, the Catholic church isn't just Roman/Latin but includes many Eastern churches as well - e.g Syriac, Chaldean.

Please do your research and you'd find thatbthe Apostles also dealt with a major issue by calling a council (Acts 15). This practice has not stopped.

btoks:
It's amazing how history can be suddenly distorted to suit 21st century narratives!!
You'll find that the early church made decisions via councils; groups that didn't accept these decisions (e.g. oriental churches) split off from the original church known as catholic.
While Roman emperors tried to have their way ( e.g. Constatine II who tried to force Pope Liberius in 350s to sign up to the Arian Heresy by condemning Athanasius of Alexandria), ultimately it was the bishops of the church that decided doctrines as they have the power to bind and loose. The church decided at the 2nd Council of Nicaea that images can be venerated not worshipped (in response to the iconoclast controversy- ironically from some emperors)
Decisions around Mary's approved titles where in response to Arian Heresies and certainly to confirm the divinity of Jesus
Celibacy is not a dogma but a discipline to ensure priests are commited to their ministries amongst other reasons ( see Jesus talknabout this here Matt 19:10–12) . This discipline could be changed in theory - in fact, the Eastern Catholic priests are not obligated to be celibate if they've been ordained as married priests. By the way, the Catholic church isn't just Roman/Latin but includes many Eastern churches as well - e.g Syriac, Chaldean.

Please do your research and you'd find thatbthe Apostles also dealt with a major issue by calling a council (Acts 15). This practice has not stopped.

"Whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" said Jesus. Not by compulsion as the Catholic church commands it's sisters and priests! that's why it is written that a bishop should be the husband of 1 wife!!! Several practices in the church have pagan origins..
Also, you bow and kneel before images that you pray to and say that's not worship? Verbal/semantic/linguistic gymnastics!!
Read below
https://www.nairaland.com/1085030/roman-catholicism-cultism

[quote author=SonofElElyonRet post=135226932]"

Whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" said Jesus. Not by compulsion as the Catholic church commands it's sisters and priests! that's why it is written that a bishop should be the husband of 1 wife!!! Several practices in the church have pagan origins..

This is the point, no one is forced to become a priest, sister/nun or brother/monk. - read the words before the verse you quoted - and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
There are several other ways to serve, including non-celibate deaconate. Catholic Church chose to apply this criteria to selects its ministers and religious.

Re bishop with 1 wife - not a requirement to marry but emphasis laid on morality and fidelity during a time when people divorced and remarried regularly. A number of bishops were married initially but see my response above.

Also, you bow and kneel before images that you pray to and say that's not worship? Verbal/semantic/linguistic gymnastics!!

Why would catholics deny what it does or doesn't worship!! Images have always been an aids to devotion and teaching tools ( especially in an age where most people couldn't read).
Eg. of image use in scripture
Ex 25:18–20: God commands Moses to make golden cherubim (angels) on the Ark of the Covenant.
> "You shall make two cherubim of gold... at the two ends of the mercy seat..."

Worship/ adoration is given to Trinity alone( please attend a catholic mass to see an example. Honour is given to saints.

[quote author=btoks post=135229019][/quote]I admire your sophistry but it's not working
Any one who wants to serve God in the sense of the priesthood/pastorate, according to catholic church MUST be celibate ... Nowhere in the old or new testament is that commanded.. you are permitted to marry according to the bible...

Well.. did the Israelites kneel and bow before the images of the cherubims? Did they pray to images? Naaaah

SonofElElyonRet:
You'll need to carry out your own research into the influence and "reforms" of the Roman empire that resulted in the Roman Catholic church. Practices that the apostles and early fathers neither approved nor adopted... queen of heaven/mariolatry, graven images in worship, celibacy as a command to priests, flagellation, and subsequent strange practices

Still awaiting a list of bishops from this 'separate' early church you refer to, or writings from any of the associated church fathers.

btoks:
Still awaiting a list of bishops from this 'separate' early church you refer to, or writings from any of the associated church fathers.

All the ones in the new testament nko?

SonofElElyonRet:
I admire your sophistry but it's not working
Any one who wants to serve God in the sense of the priesthood/pastorate, according to catholic church MUST be celibate ... Nowhere in the old or new testament is that commanded.. you are permitted to marry according to the bible...

Well.. did the Israelites kneel and bow before the images of the cherubims? Did they pray to images? Naaaah

I don't see why you have an issue with celibacy in the church when Our Lord Jesus and Paul extol the virtues of being celibate for the kingdom of God.
The Catholic church (plus other apostlic churches ) has the authority to make celibacy a requirement for their bishops and priests(in the case of latin rite catholics), what's wrong with that? Whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" The fact is this enables them dedicate themselves more fully to God and the Church. Don't you think it'll be a good thing to see some celibate ministers in evangelical and pentecostal churches? The Catholic church values marriage highly and you’ll find that divorce & remarriage is not even permitted as per Jesus in Matt 19:6: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” Everyone is called to their own vocation and as I mentioned before,there are several ways to serve in the church. As an aside, it's worth noting thatthere are a number of married priests even within the latin rite catholic church who've received special dispensation to be ordained. Celibacy is a gift and discipline, not doctrine.

Re.Israelites bowing before the ark, see below, they didn't worship the ark but worship God in its presence, just like catholics do not worship icons/images:

- Josh7:6 – Joshua fell face down before the Ark of the Lord.
- 1 Sam 4:3–5 – Israel shouted with reverence as the Ark entered the camp.
- 1 Kings 8:6, 10–11, 54 – Solomon knelt in prayer before the Ark during the temple dedication.
- 1 Chron 28:2 – David calls the Ark “the footstool of our God.”
- 2 Sam 6:13–15 – David worshipped with dancing and sacrifice before the Ark.

And to add, the apostles were given the power to bind and lose. This was passed to their successors (bishops) through apostolic succession. These bishops affirmed that icons can be used in aid of worship but not as objects of worship as per my previous comment. Research 2nd Council of Nicaea.

SonofElElyonRet:
All the ones in the new testament nko?

,the Catholic church believes in the new testament and was very instrumental in the scriptures being available today, whether it was through the monks hand copying manuscripts on to scrolls through the centuries or canonising which books form the bible as part of its tradition, translating to common languages, adding chapter and verses, confirming who the gospel authors were through its own church fathers.

The fact remains that the apostlic age ended in the 1st century ,the early church continued functioning after the apostles death. Can you point to any writings from this "separate Church" that held different beliefs or practices than the Catholic Church of that time?. Have you got a list of their bishops say between 100AD and 200AD?

btoks:
I don't see why you have an issue with celibacy in the church when Our Lord Jesus and Paul extol the virtues of being celibate for the kingdom of God.
The Catholic church (plus other apostlic churches ) has the authority to make celibacy a requirement for their bishops and priests(in the case of latin rite catholics), what's wrong with that? Whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" The fact is this enables them dedicate themselves more fully to God and the Church. Don't you think it'll be a good thing to see some celibate ministers in evangelical and pentecostal churches? The Catholic church values marriage highly and you’ll find that divorce & remarriage is not even permitted as per Jesus in Matt 19:6: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” Everyone is called to their own vocation and as I mentioned before,there are several ways to serve in the church. As an aside, it's worth noting thatthere are a number of married priests even within the latin rite catholic church who've received special dispensation to be ordained. Celibacy is a gift and discipline, not doctrine.

Re.Israelites bowing before the ark, see below, they didn't worship the ark but worship God in its presence, just like catholics do not worship icons/images:

- Josh7:6 – Joshua fell face down before the Ark of the Lord.
- 1 Sam 4:3–5 – Israel shouted with reverence as the Ark entered the camp.
- 1 Kings 8:6, 10–11, 54 – Solomon knelt in prayer before the Ark during the temple dedication.
- 1 Chron 28:2 – David calls the Ark “the footstool of our God.”
- 2 Sam 6:13–15 – David worshipped with dancing and sacrifice before the Ark.

And to add, the apostles were given the power to bind and lose. This was passed to their successors (bishops) through apostolic succession. These bishops affirmed that icons can be used in aid of worship but not as objects of worship as per my previous comment. Research 2nd Council of Nicaea.

Are you saying Catholics don't directly mention Mary's name and directly address her when kneeling before her statue? Come on bro...
The Catholic church's insistence on priests and nuns being celibate contradicts the teachings of both Christ and Paul who say it's voluntary..

Also why do Catholics claim that Mary remained a virgin until she died when she had James and Joses (with Joseph) after Jesus? Come on..

SonofElElyonRet:
Rome accepted Christianity in 313AD and it was after that time that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was founded..
Regarding the "Saint" Prefix, you started it by insisting must attach same to Luke's name..

Happy Sunday bro,
3rd century A.D, good.. so what happened to the earlier church since you said a new church was formed in Rome?

I mean the church prior to the Edict of Milan... Where did it vaporize to? Cos I want you and I to trace a link together... That link, you have already maliciously broken the Roman Catholic church off from 313 AD. So help me let's take it one at a time... Did the church founded by Peter(As commissioned by our Lord Jesus) disappear?

I mean the one prior to 313 A.

livebullet:
Happy Sunday bro,
3rd century A.D, good.. so what happened to the earlier church since you said a new church was formed in Rome?

I mean the church prior to the Edict of Milan... Where did it vaporize to? Cos I want you and I to trace a link together... That link, you have already maliciously broken the Roman Catholic church off from 313 AD. So help me let's take it one at a time... Did the church founded by Peter(As commissioned by our Lord Jesus) disappear?

I mean the one prior to 313 A.

I'm sure you know it was driven underground due to persecution and some splinters introduced strange doctrines.. even in the bible, Jesus and the apostles warned in the books of the new testament that new doctrines not taught by Christ would be introduced by those who would fall away into heresy

[quote author=SonofElElyonRet post=135238563]

Are you saying Catholics don't directly mention Mary's name and directly address her when kneeling before her statue? Come on bro...

Yes, Catholics do mention Mary's name and the names of other saints when asking for their intercession, however, icons are not idols but visual reminders of the holy lives we aspire to imitate. Having a photo of an ancestor or president on the wall doesn't mean you're worshipping them nor does a protestant worship the bible when it is raised or held in reverence. Catholics may kneel (not mandatory) before a statue while praying, but that posture is not exclusive to worship, it’s also a sign of reverence and petition.

Also, praying doesn’t automatically mean worship either. The older and broader meaning of "to pray" is "to ask." and worship in the Catholic understanding involves much more - sacrifice (which is reserved for God alone), adoration and the liturgy.

Catholics also believe in the communion of saints: the Church Militant (believers on earth), the Church Suffering (souls in purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (saints in heaven). Scripture supports this understanding of unity across heaven and earth( Heb 12:1 refers to great cloud of witnesses) showing that those who have gone before us are still spiritually connected to us.

The Catholic church's insistence on priests and nuns being celibate contradicts the teachings of both Christ and Paul who say it's voluntary..

please re-read my previous long post to understand what was stated!!! How does this church discipline contradict scripture?!!! And yes, celibacy is voluntary, some choose to practice it for the sake of the kingdom of God. To become a priest/ bishop you'll also be choosing to practice celibacy. Would be good to also see this within evangelical/ protestant churches.

Also why do Catholics claim that Mary remained a virgin until she died when she had James and Joses (with Joseph) after Jesus? Come on..

Now you're bringing up a new topic without concluding the current discussion and would be better you open another thread as this one as already been very well deralied.
This is a big topic, but I'll give a brief response:
Her role as new ark of the convenant (set apart and holy, just like the Ark in the Old Testament) meant it was fitting that she remained untouched.
Also, If Mary had given birth to James and Jose as you claim, why would Jesus entrust her to John? According to Jewish custom, that would’ve been unnecessary and against jewish custom, as care of widow would pass to the next eldest child, if widow had one.

[quote author=btoks post=135257646][/quote]Ok Mr defender of the Catholic church... We've been at it for days now.. let's just say we have agreed to disagree

SonofElElyonRet:
Ok Mr defender of the Catholic church... We've been at it for days now.. let's just say we have agreed to disagree

It's all good.
Hopefully someday you might consider looking beyond sola scriptura to better understand where catholics are coming from.

btoks:
It's all good.
Hopefully someday you might consider looking beyond sola scriptura to better understand where catholics are coming from.

Don't start again .. I know the Catholic church and it's roots .. Queen of heaven and all..

[quote author=btoks post=135257646][/quote]Your argument ignores facts and relies on assumptions.. were James and Joses, clearly mentioned in scripture as 2 of the 4 brothers of Christ in Mathew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 part of his disciples? The same James was referred to by Paul as "the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19. Jesus trusted John to take care of his mother because he was his disciple and the one Jesus loved the most out of them (John the Beloved)

SonofElElyonRet:
Your argument ignores facts and relies on assumptions.. were James and Joses (clearly mentioned in scripture as brothers of Christ) part of his disciples? He trusted John because he was his disciple and the one Jesus loved the most out of them (John the Beloved)

No assumptions but what has been taught since early christianity. I'll point out that there was universal agreement among church fathers closest to the time that Mary remained perpetual virgin. The use of "brother" (adelphoi in greek) in the scriptures is not exclusive to blood siblings alone but could refer to relatives or close kin(see Gen 13:8 ; 14:14 -Abraham calls his nephew Lot 'brother'), several other examples available.

Also, James and Joses are identified elsewhere as the sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas (see Mark 15:40, Matt 27:56, John 19:25), not Mary the mother of Jesus. Tradition has it that there were sisters in law or cousins hence John 19 :25 calls them susters

Would Jesus really have broken Jewish custom by entrusting his Mother to a non relative?!! Wasn't it this same James that became bishop of Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, sola scriptura will limit your scope of discussion on this topic.

You may wish to open another thread to discuss this big topic.

SonofElElyonRet:
Your argument ignores facts and relies on assumptions.. were James and Joses, clearly mentioned in scripture as 2 of the 4 brothers of Christ in Mathew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 part of his disciples? The same James was referred to by Paul as "the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19. Jesus trusted John to take care of his mother because he was his disciple and the one Jesus loved the most out of them (John the Beloved)

"It's ironic that this argument is based on Sola Scriptura yet Scripture never actually says that's the reason Jesus entrusted his mother to John. It's your personal interpretation, not a direct scriptural statement. Reason why we need sacred tradition plus scripture.

SonofElElyonRet:
Don't start again .. I know the Catholic church and it's roots .. Queen of heaven and all..

Interesting, please research some more and you might get better context for the scriptures - old and new.

Easy to pick one topic out of context but do you also know the following about the catholic church?:
-Apostolic Succession
-Teaching Authority (Magisterium): Unified interpretation of Scripture and doctrine.
-Scripture + Tradition: Faith is rooted in both the Bible and the living Tradition passed down since the apostles
-Sacramental Life
- Evidence of actual miracles (research eucharist miraclea, tilma of guadalupe etc)
-Global Reach: Largest Christian body worldwide.
-Charity and Service: Largest non-governmental provider of education, healthcare and humanitarian aid globally.
- Spiritual Depth: Rich tradition of prayer, mysticism, saints and spiritual writings.
You may want to discuss these separately in relation to what the church should be.

btoks:
No assumptions but what has been taught since early christianity. I'll point out that there was universal agreement among church fathers closest to the time that Mary remained perpetual virgin. The use of "brother" (adelphoi in greek) in the scriptures is not exclusive to blood siblings alone but could refer to relatives or close kin(see Gen 13:8 ; 14:14 -Abraham calls his nephew Lot 'brother'), several other examples available.

Also, James and Joses are identified elsewhere as the sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas (see Mark 15:40, Matt 27:56, John 19:25), not Mary the mother of Jesus. Tradition has it that there were sisters in law or cousins hence John 19 :25 calls them susters

Would Jesus really have broken Jewish custom by entrusting his Mother to a non relative?!! Wasn't it this same James that became bishop of Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, sola scriptura will limit your scope of discussion on this topic.

You may wish to open another thread to discuss this big topic.

Bro why are you in denial? You keep quoting extra biblical sources that are essentially from the Catholic church. Such evidence isn't reliable because it's bias. The new
New testament was written in Greek and not in Hebrew. The writers of NT never called cousins brothers. John the Baptist was never called the brother of Jesus. When the new testament called John and James Zebedee brothers, it meant same thing as the 4 brothers of Jesus born by Mary his mother. Mary was nowhere in the bible referred to as a perpetual virgin. Matthew 1:25
When Joseph woke up he did what the angel had told him. He married Mary, but had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. This needs no special interpretation to know that Joseph slept with Mary after she delivered Jesus and she bore him 4 biological sons named by Matthew and Mark. Also James was named by Paul in Galatians.

SonofElElyonRet:
Bro why are you in denial? You keep quoting extra biblical sources that are essentially from the Catholic church. Such evidence isn't reliable because it's bias. The new
New testament was written in Greek and not in Hebrew. The writers of NT never called cousins brothers. John the Baptist was never called the brother of Jesus. When the new testament called John and James Zebedee brothers, it meant same thing as the 4 brothers of Jesus born by Mary his mother. Mary was nowhere in the bible referred to as a perpetual virgin. Matthew 1:25
When Joseph woke up he did what the angel had told him. He married Mary, but had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. This needs no special interpretation to know that Joseph slept with Mary after she delivered Jesus and she bore him 4 biological sons named by Matthew and Mark. Also James was named by Paul in Galatians.

Why do you trust the NT texts at all if you believe the Church that preserved, copied, and canonised them is not reliable? The same Church, whose so called "extra-biblical" sources you're dismissing, is precisely the body that affirmed the NT canon at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) councils before the printing press and long after the Apostles. The canon was later reaffirmed dogmatically at the Council of Trent in 1546. Without the authority of the Church, we wouldn't even have the Bible as you know it.

I'm not in denial at all but relying on the testimony of the church fathers closest to the events. They were taught by the Apostles' successors and affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity among many other teachings passed down in Sacred Tradition and defended it against challenges like those of Helvidius in the 4th century. Protestant reformers Martin Luther,Zwigli and Calvin also upheld Mary perpetual virginity.

Regarding the use of "brothers" of Jesus, this reflects a jewish usage of language. Yes the NT was written in Greek, but deeply Jewish in its worldview. Hebrew and Aramaic, spoken in Jesus' time, did not distinguish between brothers and close kin as you know. And there are several examples of brothers used for non siblings and fellow country men.

You haven't given a valid reason why Jesus would entrust Mary to John, instead of one of these supposed brothers nor have you addressed James and Joses mother being Mary of Clopas as per scriptures. It was clear the James.and John were Zebedees sons and nowhere do we see the "brothers" of Jesus described as Mary's sons. This aligns with early church teachimg that they were Jesus' close relatives. John the baptist was of a different household and a more distant relative and thus the word sungenes(relative ) to describe his mother's relationship to Mary.

As for .."knew her not her until she gave birth...",you're misunderstanding the Greek usage of heōs (until) compared to modern days. It doesn’t imply that the action must have changed afterward. The focus in Matthew is on the confirmation of virginal birth, not on what happened after. There are several examples in scripture where action doesn't change afterward:

- 2 Sam 6:23 – “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.” That doesn't mean she had children after death.
- Deut34:6 – "No one knows his burial place to this day" doesn't mean someone eve[i]ntually found it later.
- 1 Cor 15:25[/i] – Christ "must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet" does that mean He stops reigning after that?

The Bible wasn't dropped from the sky. It came from within the church, interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. Doctrines like the Trinity, two natures of Christ etc were clarified through centuries of scriptural study and Church teaching, not because they were spelled out word for word in Scripture, but because they were present in seed form, requiring faithful interpretation, so too was the church’s understanding of Mary’s unique role.

So again, where in early Christianity was it taught that Mary had other children? You won't find it because it wasn't believed.

btoks:
Why do you trust the NT texts at all if you believe the Church that preserved, copied, and canonised them is not reliable? The same Church, whose so called "extra-biblical" sources you're dismissing, is precisely the body that affirmed the NT canon at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) councils before the printing press and long after the Apostles. The canon was later reaffirmed dogmatically at the Council of Trent in 1546. Without the authority of the Church, we wouldn't even have the Bible as you know it.

I'm not in denial at all but relying on the testimony of the church fathers closest to the events. They were taught by the Apostles' successors and affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity among many other teachings passed down in Sacred Tradition and defended it against challenges like those of Helvidius in the 4th century. Protestant reformers Martin Luther,Zwigli and Calvin also upheld Mary perpetual virginity.

Regarding the use of "brothers" of Jesus, this reflects a jewish usage of language. Yes the NT was written in Greek, but deeply Jewish in its worldview. Hebrew and Aramaic, spoken in Jesus' time, did not distinguish between brothers and close kin as you know. And there are several examples of brothers used for non siblings and fellow country men.

You haven't given a valid reason why Jesus would entrust Mary to John, instead of one of these supposed brothers nor have you addressed James and Joses mother being Mary of Clopas as per scriptures. It was clear the James.and John were Zebedees sons and nowhere do we see the "brothers" of Jesus described as Mary's sons. This aligns with early church teachimg that they were Jesus' close relatives. John the baptist was of a different household and a more distant relative and thus the word sungenes(relative ) to describe his mother's relationship to Mary.

As for .."knew her not her until she gave birth...",you're misunderstanding the Greek usage of heōs (until) compared to modern days. It doesn’t imply that the action must have changed afterward. The focus in Matthew is on the confirmation of virginal birth, not on what happened after. There are several examples in scripture where action doesn't change afterward:

- 2 Sam 6:23 – “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.” That doesn't mean she had children after death.
- Deut34:6 – "No one knows his burial place to this day" doesn't mean someone eve[i]ntually found it later.
- 1 Cor 15:25[/i] – Christ "must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet" does that mean He stops reigning after that?

The Bible wasn't dropped from the sky. It came from within the church, interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. Doctrines like the Trinity, two natures of Christ etc were clarified through centuries of scriptural study and Church teaching, not because they were spelled out word for word in Scripture, but because they were present in seed form, requiring faithful interpretation, so too was the church’s understanding of Mary’s unique role.

So again, where in early Christianity was it taught that Mary had other children? You won't find it because it wasn't believed.

Extra biblical course when in conflict with scripture is null and void. Bible states that Jesus had brothers and not cousins.. new testament. Quote me somewhere in the New testament where cousin is referred to as brother. The Greek language is completely different from Hebrew or Aramaic. If NT calls cousins brothers it would've referred to John the Baptist as a brother of Jesus.. NT is very specific in describing affinity sir

SonofElElyonRet:
Extra biblical course when in conflict with scripture is null and void. Bible states that Jesus had brothers and not cousins.. new testament. Quote me somewhere in the New testament where cousin is referred to as brother. The Greek language is completely different from Hebrew or Aramaic. If NT calls cousins brothers it would've referred to John the Baptist as a brother of Jesus.. NT is very specific in describing affinity sir

Not extra-biblical because interpretation is within church own sacred tradition not speculation/personal interpretation outside context 2000 years later. The Catholic church rests on Scripture, Sacred tradition and the teaching magisterium.- This is hiw doctrine has been confirmed over the centuries.
You're avoiding the scriptural reference I already gave:
Regarding James and Joses, I've already pointed out that these brothers of Jesus have their mother listed as Mary of Clopas in Matt 27:56 and John 19:25. Please explain how they could then be Mary's children. Catholic church looks at the entire biblical context not a verse plucked out.
Jesus entrusting Mary to John against Jewish custom going by your claim. How do you justify this if Jesus had other biological brothers?

I've already explained that John was a more distant relative outside the household and his mothers relationship is stated as sungenes of Mary accordingly. Adelphos was typically used for closer kin or even extended ones not necessarily for relatives living apart.

Brothers (adelphoi) is used in many instances in the NT not necessarily cousins. Please deal with James and Joses first.
E.g. of adelphoi use for non siblings:
Acts 1:14–15
Romans 9:3
1 Corinthians 15:6

btoks:
Not extra-biblical because interpretation is within church own sacred tradition not speculation/personal interpretation outside context 2000 years later. The Catholic church rests on Scripture, Sacred tradition and the teaching magisterium.- This is hiw doctrine has been confirmed over the centuries.
You're avoiding the scriptural reference I already gave:
Regarding James and Joses, I've already pointed out that these brothers of Jesus have their mother listed as Mary of Clopas in Matt 27:56 and John 19:25. Please explain how they could then be Mary's children. Catholic church looks at the entire biblical context not a verse plucked out.
Jesus entrusting Mary to John against Jewish custom going by your claim. How do you justify this if Jesus had other biological brothers?

I've already explained that John was a more distant relative outside the household and his mothers relationship is stated as sungenes of Mary accordingly. Adelphos was typically used for closer kin or even extended ones not necessarily for relatives living apart.

Brothers (adelphoi) is used in many instances in the NT not necessarily cousins. Please deal with James and Joses first.
E.g. of adelphoi use for non siblings:
Acts 1:14–15
Romans 9:3
1 Corinthians 15:6

Bro Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 based on context clearly spoke of the children of the mother of Jesus but you are in denial.. is his mother not Mary and his brothers james joses etc? By simple rule of contextual interpretation it is overwhelming clear but you are in denial.
The other Mary also had children named james and joses but that was James the Less and not the brother of Jesus who was called James the Just or James of Jerusalem who Paul spoke about in Galatians and who wrote the book of James. It is that James the son of Mary that was mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55
For your additional info, James the brother of Jesus headed the church council in Jerusalem and was called James the Just or James of Jerusalem. He became a Christian (probably after Christ's resurrection which likely led to his conversion). Galatians 1:18-19, Acts 15, Acts 21:18
Don't be in denial bro

SonofElElyonRet:
Bro Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 based on context clearly spoke of the children of the mother of Jesus but you are in denial.. is his mother not Mary and his brothers james joses etc? By simple rule of contextual interpretation it is overwhelming clear but you are in denial.
The other Mary also had children named james and joses but that was James the Less and not the brother of Jesus who was called James the Just or James of Jerusalem who Paul spoke about in Galatians and who wrote the book of James. It is that James the son of Mary that was mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55
For your additional info, James the brother of Jesus headed the church council in Jerusalem and was called James the Just or James of Jerusalem. He became a Christian (probably after Christ's resurrection which likely led to his conversion). Galatians 1:18-19, Acts 15, Acts 21:18
Don't be in denial bro

I'm in no denial and go with early christianity interpretation over yours 2000 years later. When did your interpretation first appear in christian history if you're confident of it?

So they just happened to mention “Mary’s sister, the mother of James and Joses” at the Crucifixion. Why, exactly? Just a coincidence?

So this James was Mary's son but couldn't care for her as required by Jewish custom?

btoks:
I'm in no denial and go with early christianity interpretation over yours 2000 years later. When did your interpretation first appear in christian history if you're confident of it?

So they just happened to mention “Mary’s sister, the mother of James and Joses” at the Crucifixion. Why, exactly? Just a coincidence?

So this James was Mary's son but couldn't care for her as required by Jewish custom?

Proverbs 18:24 there's a friend that sticks closer than a brother. Jesus loved John the apostle specially. He was referred to as John the beloved.. Jesus is Lord even of/over Jewish customs as you well know..

Asake – Alhamdulillah

Incredibly gifted artist Asake has just unveiled a new masterpiece track across all streaming platforms, titled “Alhamdulillah.”

This powerful single, Alhamdulillah Mp3 Download, is packed with energy and emotion, guaranteed to keep you vibing from the first beat to the last. Asake truly put his soul into this record, making it a must-have on your playlist if you’re a lover of quality music.