Roman Catholic Church and the Pope being unpopular

[Debp]

36 minutes ago, ChurchMilitant said:

I was not aware she was a female. To be honest, I never really looked at her name. I apologize. With all do respect, your demeanor shows a state of venom by first, duplicating my mistake to the entireity of Roman Catholic apologists that defend the true faith, and and also assuming that I am preaching that she is a male. I have not done so, nor is there any visual evidence to afifrm that. 

Ok. Firstly speaking, I really think you should learn about the Early Church instead of actually stating statements that lack any historical basis. Firstly speaking, the Church does not support the worshipping of Mary. I can understand the fact that in America, a lot of you have been brainwashed with all false bases for Catholicism, but that isn't true. We do not worship Mary, we never have, nor we every will.

 

So firstly, based on your last sentence where you speak about Emperor Constantine uniting Christianity with pagan worship, which you (falsely) equated with the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. Yes, this article mentions the third(200s) and fourth centuries)300s), but it also focuses on the 2nd century(the year 100s). Ok?  Also FYI, Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicea to defend Christ's divinity from the heretic Arius who believed Jesus wasn't God. Tertullian(a Roman Catholic before the became a heretic) was also the first Christian to use the word trinity in the Latin context. So I guess that it his' a heretic too, yeah? 

http://www.earlychristians.org/index.php/origins/item/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church

 

 

So just to make it clear then, if your false claims are true. God has allowed 1800 years of supposedely false Christianity to be practiced without wiping it out through divine chastisement, and that people have for over a 1000 years in Europe, been lead by this "pagan worship". Again, the Greek Septugiant was what was the Bible for the Early Christians. I suppose they were using phony extra-bibical readings to. Also, FYI, the KJV comes from the Greek manuscripts KEPT by the Catholic Church. But I guess we should forget that to. In fact, I would wager the KJV is the best Bible to refute false Protestant doctrines like faith alone. 

Matthew 1:24-25 King James Version (KJV)

²⁴ 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: and he called his name Jesus.

 

"1:25 until: The Greek heos does not imply that Joseph and Mary had marital relations following Jesus' birth.This conjunction is often used (translated "to" or "till") to indicate a select period of time, without implying change in the future (2 Sam 6:23 [LXX]; Jn 9:18; 1 Tim 4:13). Here Matthew emphasizes only that Joseph had no involvement in Mary's pregnancy before Jesus' birth."

 

 

Adding in a few quotes from notable Protestant figures: 

Martin Luther wrote:

"When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)

 

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John)

Huldrych Zwingli wrote:

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424)

Even John Wesley, in 1749, wrote:

"I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Letter to a Roman Catholic)

Just also going to add this here as well: https://aleteia.org/2013/10/10/a-protestant-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/

It's very hard to read your rebuttal to me that Joseph did not know Mary until after the birth of Jesus.   Because your rebuttal is highlighted all in black, perhaps some of the others missed it?

Perhaps some others more skilled than me about the Greek word for  "until" will respond to you about that?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

22 minutes ago, ChurchMilitant said:

I edited it. I hope it's satisfactory now. 

EDIT: Actually, just give me a second. I'm going to do something to make my point more illustrated. 

EDIT #2: If you check here(http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat1.pdf), you will see the word Heos @Debp Here is the link to the word(https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/heos.html). FYI the pdf I gave you uses the Textus Receptus.

The NAS you referenced in the above quote is an error by you.  The NAS is NOT based on the Textus Receptus.  You are guilty of misquoting from the internet to make a point, or plain and simple lying to promote the Roman Catholic Church.  Since the common language of Jesus' time was either Greek or Aramaic, till and until are acceptable translations of heos as your own source shows.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

26 minutes ago, ChurchMilitant said:

I was evidencing the Greek there that uses the word heos and from my understanding, based on this link(http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm), it states at the top that it was based on the Textus Receptus, an updated version. I posted the second link there to illustrate the verses my quote showed to evidence the fact that my quote itself is true. 

Since I hold the New American Standard Bible (NASB) above all others although I read others too, I use it for serious study.  I read you second quote as supporting my position.  I don't have a problem with that.  As a former RC, I've heard my share of false theology, like the Immaculate Conception Doctrine defined in 1854 by Pope Pius IX, or the Assumption Doctrine defined in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, aka Hitler's Pope.

[Sower]

2 hours ago, ChurchMilitant said:

Here's one thing I challenge for oyu to do: Go to Youtube, search up "Mary's Sinlessness: A Biblical Documentary". If you can refute every single thing that is in there, I will leave Catholicism

No you won't. Your faith is tediously held by a group of men walking around in robes, allowing you to kiss their ring, as you kneel before them, and the wooden and stone idols. As had I, before a seed was planted. (In good soil)
Matt 13,23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it.

^{Matt 13,16}  But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. ¹⁷ For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

2Co 4:3-4  But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[Steve_S]

On 7/8/2018 at 8:54 AM, ChurchMilitant said:

Firstly speaking, the term brother has different meanings in scripture. In Genesis 13:8, and 14:2,  brother means an extended relationship which was the First Patriach, Abraham, and Lot.  Furthermore, Jesus Christ Our Lord who is God told us to call each other brothers in Matthew 23:8. St Paul, if my memory serves me right, says that we are "brothers in Christ". If I'm wrong, it's still used by many Christians today to show commonality between ourselves and the faith that we have in God. 

You mention Matthew 13:55-56. It seems you are claiming that these men were not his brothers by Mary, but instead were simply believers? If this is the assertion, it's easily proven incorrect using scripture only. 

Joh 2:12  After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.

This was after immediately after the wedding at Cana, Christ's first recorded miracle in the book of John and probably the first of His ministry occurred at this wedding when He turned water into wine. There were only five disciples mentioned at this point (only four by name) and they had all been called within the previous week, Andrew, Simon Peter, and the unnamed disciple (probably John) at Bethabara after John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" in the presence of the unnamed disciple and Andrew (both then disciples of John the Baptist), who then went and Retrieved Simon Peter. The last day in Bethabara Jesus was intent on traveling into Galilee (John 1:43). Not incidentally, Cana was in Galilee, directly west of the Sea of Galilee and about halfway between it and the Mediterranean Sea, maybe 15 to 20 miles of travel. The third day (almost certainly the third day from when Nathanael was called), there was a wedding in Cana. Mary was there and Jesus and His disciples were invited. I will post the scripture one more time for context.

Joh 2:12  After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.

This gives us a clear and concise delineation between Christ's disciples and Christ's brothers (who were born of Mary and Joseph). Any other theory along the lines of the one you pose above regarding "brothers in Christ" would require this sentence to actually mean "He, His mother, his disciples, his disciples, and they did not stay there (Capernaum) many days," which is, of course, absurd.

This, of course, isn't the only evidence. We have yet another passage that specifically differentiates between Christ's brothers and His disciples.

Joh 7:1  After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. 
Joh 7:2  Now the Jews' Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 
Joh 7:3  His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 
Joh 7:4  For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." 
Joh 7:5  For even His brothers did not believe in Him. 
Joh 7:6  Then Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. 
Joh 7:7  The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 
Joh 7:8  You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come." 

This is pretty much self explanatory. Christ's own brothers did not believe He was Messiah (not yet, anyway). They encouraged Him to leave in an almost chiding manner, basically accusing Him of hiding out in Galilee. If they were his "brothers" in a spiritual sense, there's a big problem, because they didn't believe he was the Christ! Not only that, his brothers told Him to leave so He can show His disciples the works He was doing. There is no possible way to interpret these "brothers" as being his disciples.

Mary's perpetual virginity is an abject absurdity in light of Matthew 1:24-25 as well.

Mat 1:24  Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 
Mat 1:25  and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. 

That version is the NKJV, which is what I typically use. Below are some translations that are officially sanctioned by the catholic church.

24 After Joseph woke up, he and Mary were soon married, just as the Lord’s angel had told him to do. 25 But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. (CEV).

24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. 25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,[a] and he named him Jesus. (NABRE)

24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (NRSV, CE)

Pretty much every bible translation I know of translates this in the same or a similar manner as above. Words have meaning, words matter, and when the words in the scripture point to an obvious event, the only reason to discount them is to prop up a doctrine that is not present in the text itself, particularly to protect a doctrine that is clearly counter-indicated by the text itself, which is precisely the situation we find ourselves in here.

If we were having a pleasant conversation one morning and I said to you "I didn't leave for work until I had coffee," would you assume that I never left for work? That I simply had coffee and retired to my living room for the rest of the day? If I said to you "John didn't escort Jane to the store until after she called him to let him know she was ready," would you assume that after she called him to let him know she was ready, he just never picked her up? Of course not. It's absurd! It is also absurd to assume that the word "until" here is easily interchanged with a word or words such as "ever" or "at all." Why, if one were to start changing the meanings of words so easily, they could find themselves making the bible say anything they'd like, and who wants that? I assume no one!

I could go on, but I don't think there's any point in it. As noted above, even bibles that the Catholic church officially sanction are clear in their translation of Matthew 1:24-25 and this clearly states that he (Joseph) only refrained from marital relations with Mary until she had delivered Jesus. We can debate the meaning of the word "until" I suppose, but is that really necessary? It would be a farce. I suppose I could also show examples of the underlying Greek word here - heos (transliterated) actually meaning "until" in or "till, etc., but would there be any profit in that? Probably not.

Any number of catholic theologians do all sorts of scriptural gymnastics to get around what the text clearly states in multiple areas regarding Christ's brothers and especially with regard to Mary's virginity after Christ's birth, but they do not derive that doctrine itself from the scriptures, but from the sacred tradition and other sources that are not God breathed. Man's tradition is perpetually wrought with failure after failure after failure throughout history in every possible context. God's word, though, will never pass away and can always be trusted. This is not a textual debate, try as the catholic church might to make it one, but a philosophical debate on whether or not the scriptures are what really matter. Here on our forums we affirm the primacy of the scriptures over any other source or combination of sources. This is specified within our statement of faith and we do take it seriously.

 

[Pure Waters]

Seems that I opened a real can of worms with this thread

[Sower]

1 hour ago, ChurchMilitant said:

No, I do see. I see that the Early Christians believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin: that there was no Protestantism at the Church, and that the Blessed Virgin was always a perpetual virgin. I however have given a set of conditions. If you can't refute it, just be honest, and don't lie. It's a waste of time. 

"The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.
 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

1 hour ago, ChurchMilitant said:

Where do you get your New Testament Cannon? Who was the very first person to compile all the New Testament cannons that we have today? You want to know who? St. Athanasius, the Great Defender of Orthodoxy and Christ's Divinity. He also believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary, and called her the Mother of God . 

So he was wrong and should be a saint as deemed by the Roman Catholic Church.  But somehow, the church did not accept Athanasius' opinion until the 1800's when the Pope Pius deemed it so.  Seems like you hold Athanasius higher than the church did for the next 1500 years or so.

[frienduff thaylorde]

2 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

Is that like a card game for folks who can't get stuff right?

"Hey guys! Let's play a few hands of Wrongo!"

Wrongo by definition is the game played by all who follow the pope and the roman catholic church .   Its a heavy game with a heavy price for all who partake of it and wont repent of it .

[ayin jade]

22 minutes ago, ChurchMilitant said:

"

Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31). 


 

These are not teaching tools.