Advertisements

Did Jesus Have Siblings?

I really enjoy listening to debates. They are a great way to hear both sides of a specific topic and then way the evidence for both. This clip is from a debate entitled “The Marian Doctrines Debate”. <———Click the link to buy the debate. It is well worth the dough.

Anyway, this debate featured Dr. James White and Gerry Matatics. It was a heated discussion but I thought it brought the points up well and really showed us what the Catholic position boils down to. What is that?

When you ask a Catholic to show where the Bible speaks about Mary’s assumption or perpetual virginity the Catholic is forced to say, “The Church tells me it is true. Thus, it is true.”

Take a listen and see if I am not speaking the truth:

The Marian Doctrines Debate

Would anyone reading Matthew 12:46, which says, “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him,” actually think that Jesus’ cousins were outside waiting for him? I don’t think so. That is why the Roman Catholic Church forces the believer to believe what the Church tells them instead of what Scripture tells them.

I pray that my Catholic friends come to realize this.

On a lighter note here is a little comedy to prove that I am not such a mean guy 🙂

Advertisements

About Travis Berry

I am a blatantly honest person who loves to think, read, discuss, and write about God and theology. I have a bachelor's degree in Youth Ministry from Crown College. I work at a church in Houston, TX as a Youth Director and love every minute of it! I am married to a wonderful woman named Becky and we have one amazing child! I have a love for God's Word, and a fervor to live it out in the fullest, and I pray this blog reflects that. Thanks for checking out AnotherChristianBlog!.

Posted on December 3, 2011, in Christianity, Theology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. The problem with your comment above is you are mis interpreting the scriptures ( because u dont have anyone else to authoritatively guide you ) Take 10 protestants and you will get 10 different opinions – now logic will tell u they all cant be correct and this method of self judgement of scriptures is obviously flawed….. and a manifest failure.

    Historically in small villages they would call people brother ( rather than cousin say ) because the jews didnt have a word for cousin – so rather than say the son of my fathers brother, they would just say my brother, and being a small village, everyone would know who they were talking about.

    Anyway to show you how wrong you can be, if u take to literally the words in the bible, with out the guidance of Holy Mother Church ( ie Catholic Church ) Here is an example as foolish as yours.

    Consider this verse Mark 5:34 Turning “He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

    Now according to your simplistic reading this would prove Our Lord had a daughter….
    Now do you believe this ???? I hope not.

    So the solution is for you to find out what Holy Mother Church ( eg Catholic church ) teaches
    if you would want to understand what the bible means.

    Catholics only interpret the bible in a manner consistent with what the Church infallibly teaches.

    God isn’t so silly as to give us an infallible book without any way to infallibly understand it.
    He, in is wisdom has given us both. An infallible book and an infallible church to interpret it.

    Otherwise his book would be useless to it and a hundred different interpretations and sects would spring up each teaching different thing. As indeed has happened to all those not following the infallible Church established by Christ.
    “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”

  2. And the Church is the “the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

    Also so you can see Our Lord had no other brothers and sisters.
    There is a whole series of women in the Old Testament ( eg Sarah et al ) who had 1 child only by the miraculous intervention of God even up to St Elizabeth in the New Testament.
    ( What is all this about??? ) if in the definitive case of Mary this isnt fullfilled ????
    Guess what – that’s what all this was pointing to……
    So God did it in all these lesser cases but not with Mary and Jesus.
    ( He just had a whole line of them , right up to Mary’s immediate predecessor – for no purpose – to teach us and show us nothing !!!!)

    Also it is Jewish custom if there was a widow, care of her would go to her eldest remaining son. So Jesus had no business in giving St.John to care for Mary if she already had other sons – indeed Our Lord would have been a Law breaker. And we all know He came to full fill the Law and not break any of it.

    Again, if you would know the Truth you must follow the Church God established, His Holy and inspired Roman Catholic Church, you need to follow Her Traditional and Unchanging
    ( inspired and inerrant ) teachings. Not make up your own.

    Otherwise you are guilty of making up your own religion.
    And your own religion cannot save you. Only the religion God gave us.

    • Hey Mark,

      First, you wrote a lot and little was on the if Jesus did have siblings but I will address that then a couple of other points that you made. If you end up commenting again it would be helpful to limit it to the topic or at least a couple of topics. Let’s address some of comments.

      Mark said: “Historically in small villages they would call people brother ( rather than cousin say ) because the jews didnt have a word for cousin – so rather than say the son of my fathers brother, they would just say my brother, and being a small village, everyone would know who they were talking about.”

      Me: Well, Mark the Greek language does have a word for cousin, syggenēs. So, if the writers of Scripture knew Jesus had no brothers or sisters then they had a word to describe the people with Mary asking to speaks with Jesus in Matthew 12:46. The truth is that you are forced by placing your trust in Rome to shoe horn a conclusion into the evidence. If you did not have a conclusion already about this would you honestly come up with the perpetual virginity of Mary? No, you would not.

      And look at the argumentation you are using. You need to use small villages. Was Jesus speaking in a “small village”? Did everyone know who they were speaking of when they said, “Your mother and brothers are outside,”? He wasn’t speaking in a small town where everyone knew each other. And they knew that they were speaking of Jesus’ mother and natural brothers. If it isn’t Jesus actual brothers then his point afterward is lost. He says:

      But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

      So, Jesus is only calling the people that do the will of the Father cousins? Obviously not.

      Mark: “Again, if you would know the Truth you must follow the Church God established, His Holy and inspired Roman Catholic Church, you need to follow Her Traditional and Unchanging (inspired and inerrant) teachings.”

      Me: I am glad that I do not hold this belief. If I did I would need to defend some pretty wild doctrines that go against Scripture. The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of those things. The Bible is clear that Jesus has brothers and I have pointed that out by going to the only thing we have inspired by God…the Holy Scriptures. Also, it is really quite ignorant to think that the churches teachings are “unchanging”. Pope Honorius is just one example of such change. And your Catholic Church anathematized him. Interesting.

      Thanks for reading and commenting,

      Travis

  3. Thank you Travis for your reply, Actually I am quite impressed that you appear a fair minded person and are prepared to debate the issue. However I am still sticking to what I said. ( If it were just my opinion, I could be wrong, but I am not so stupid or arrogant to just offer you my opinion – indeed my opinion would be worthless and no better or worse than anyone else’s ) Thus I can only give you what the Church teaches.

    Please consider this

    “Brethren of the Lord”

    When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.” The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

    There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

    When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

    Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

    The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

    No Word for Cousin

    Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

    The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

    In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

    You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphosin one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

    When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

    Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

    When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

    Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

    Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

    Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

    Fundamentalist Arguments

    Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

    Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

    There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

    The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

    Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

    The Holy Family

    Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

    The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

    Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

    So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

    Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4:9).

    Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

    Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

    An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

    So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

    This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

    Source : – http://www.catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

    Besides these points there are lots more besides, this is not an exhaustive treatment.

    Let me hint at, at least one other for you
    Mary is a type of the Church – Revelations 12
    Whatever can be said of Mary in particular, can be said of the Church in general
    The Church is the spotless,and faithful bride of Christ.
    Mary also was the faithful and spotless bride of the Holy spirit ( as is the Church )

    Mary remained spotless – eg means ever Virgin ( before and after the birth of Christ )
    Mary remained ever faithful – to her husband ( God ), accepting no others as Jesus was the son of God and not the son of Joseph. Faithful to her husband ( the Holy Spirit )

    Mary is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and “Full of Grace” Luke 1:28 and remains ever so.

    • Hey Mark,

      OK, this is far to long to give any meaningful reply considering it is a comment box. However, I think all of this boils down to a couple of things.

      In that article that you copied and pasted it says:

      “They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children.”

      This is an error on the writers part. The word “until” in Matt. 1:25 is not one word. It is a phrase (heōs hos). There is no where in all of Scripture where this phrase is used and the thing it previously referred to wasn’t changed. There is no reason that we should adhere to un unnatural reading of Scripture on this point. The only reason you must take this reading is because you are following Rome instead of Scripture.

      Also my point still stands about the writers of Gospels not using the word cousins for the people standing outside waiting for Jesus. Even if Aramaic didn’t have a word for cousin are you seriously suggesting that the people who walked with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to the end would not have know they were his cousins? If they knew they were his cousins why wouldn’t they use the Greek word for cousins? Especially Luke who is so careful with the words he uses. For instance he uses the Greek word “syngenis” (cousin, kinsman) in Luke 1:36 referring to the relationship between Elizabeth and Mary. He was careful there. Why not when referring to the brothers of Jesus?

      Also, you say that it is my personal interpretation that I live by. And you say that we need an authority outside of Scripture to determine what Scripture teaches. Is not the way you interpret councils, popes, and doctrines different than other Roman Catholics? What external authority do you have to interpret the massive amount of documents that have been written over the years about what the Bible teaches? If you don’t have one then how can you criticize me for only having the Bible as my authority?

      If you cannot find it written in the pages of Scripture then how can we know it is true? Simply stating that the church tells you doesn’t answer the question. We need to go to Scripture and read it for what it says not what others say it says. One of my favorite quotes from the early church echoes this and it comes from Cyril of Jerusalem when he says:

      “In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.” -Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4,17.

      Truly wise words from an early church father.

      Travis

  4. Hi Travis, Thanks for your reply,

    I am conscious to try to keep to the topic, but a few extra things you said need responding to. I will try to keep these brief, whilst replying to the topic under discussion.

    Firstly I researched “heos hos” and sadly ( its not your fault of course ) but I found you have been gravely mis.informed about this.

    Here are some excerpts from

    http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/FallOfTheNewHelvidius.aspx

    I suggest you read this article in full. If you are sincerely seeking after the truth and would avoid being deceived.
    Its a most excellent article

    excerpt :-

    ‘Heos hou’ is not restricted only to a continuation or reversal of the main only, since it also includes the possibility of concurrence
    and cessation. Besides Matthew 1:25, there are 14 instances of ‘heos hou’ or ‘heos hos’ that are translated ‘until’; there are 2
    instances of ‘heos hou’ that are translated ‘while’; there are 2 instances of ‘heos otou’ (equivalent in meaning to ‘heos hou’)
    translated as ‘until’ and 2 instances of ‘heos otou’ being translated ‘while’. They are listed here in chronological order along with
    a commentary as to the likely interpretation of the four possible meanings (continuation, reversal, concurrence, or cessation).

    ( etc with a lot of very convincing (academic) discussion ….but ending in this

    “Finally, here are a few selections from an article by Father Ronald Tacelli, S.J. on the subject in question:
    I’m fluent in classical and koine Greek. I’ve taught high school and university Greek courses in Greek, and I regularly read Scripture in Greek. But none of this qualifies me as anything close to being an expert in Greek. So rather than trust my own judgment, I checked it out with the experts. I printed out transcripts of the online ‘heos hou’ arguments made by these Protestant apologists and showed them to several Greek scholars. They laughed, treating them with scornful derision. They confirmed what I already knew: that ‘heos hou’ is just shorthand for ‘heos hou chronou en hoi’ (literally: ‘until the time when’), and that both ‘heos’ and ‘heos hou’ have the same range of meaning. (Envoy Magazine, May/June, 1997, p. 52-53)

    The whole ‘heos hou’ vs. ‘heos’ argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek lexicon of the Roman Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that ‘heos’ and ‘heos hou’ are equivalent in meaning. (Ibid, p.54)
    [E.A. Sophocles: Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914, p. 552. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Graz: Akademische Druck- u.Verlagsanstalt, 1954, column 2643.]
    Now, we have an apparent contradiction here because in the debate, Eric Svendsen said this:

    One point he kept hammering home is that you won’t find any distinction in any lexicon between ‘heos’ and ‘heos hou’. Well, ah, that’s not surprising since lexicons do not handle grammatical constructions. They handle words. You’ll find ‘heos’. You’ll find ‘hou’. You won’t find ‘heos hou’. (57:55-58:12)
    But maybe Sophocles and Stephanus are not the cutting edge scholarship that Dr. Svendsen is looking for. In that case, we can turn to a more contemporary source. According to Burton’s Grammar (a popular Greek Grammar used by Protestants), it states the following regarding ‘heos hou’:
    In the New Testament heos is sometimes followed by ‘hou’ or ‘otou’. Heos is then a preposition governing the genitive of the relative pronoun, but the phrase heos hou or heos otou is in effect a compound conjunction having the same force as the simple heos. The construction following it is also the same, except that ‘an’ never occurs after heos hou or heos otou. (Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek [Grand Rapid, Michigan, Kregel Publications, second printing 1978], pp.128-129)

    Whatever Dr. Svendsen’s scholarship faculties which no doubt are much greater than this writer has under his command – he has either been grossly negligent in communicating the Helvidian position on these points or he has tried to purposely mislead people. Neither alternative, unfortunately, reflects very well on Dr. Svendsen.
    Some Final Words So in this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have Sophocles, Stephanus, the Septuagint, St. John Chrysostom [the great master of the Greek language], and modern Greek scholars. We have the great giants of Christianity’s heritage and tradition like Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Jerome. In fact, we have ALL of the Fathers supporting the Catholic view. None reject it. And we even have the ‘great’ Protestant forebearers – even Calvin himself – who also side with the historic Christian view on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. In the other corner, we have the “tiny streams of opinion” belonging to those like Ebion, Theodotus, Valentinus, and Helvidius, and now…James White and Eric Svendsen with Logos Bible software, of course.

    So, dear reader, what will it be? Indeed, whose side are you on? Will you cast your lot with a rather rare reading of ‘sunerchomai’ or insist
    that ‘first born’ implies other children when the overabundance of Scripture clearly refutes your understanding? Perhaps you will bind
    ‘adelphos’ to a narrow usage when the Bible does not, or maybe hinge your position on a herculean pronoun which, it is alleged, has the inherent
    capacity to restrict the ‘heos’ meaning all by itself?

    End excepts

    As I said Travis please read this in full
    http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/FallOfTheNewHelvidius.aspx
    ( so I don’t need to copy and paste it for you )

    Next statement from you
    “The only reason you must take this reading is because you are following Rome instead of Scripture.”
    “Only reason” !!! No other reason would suffice.
    Bibles didn’t rain down from the skies, It was the Roman Catholic Church that defined and settled the Cannon of the Bible,
    including some books, and rejecting others, as not being Divinely inspired.

    You can thank the Catholic church that you have the bible as the inspired word of God in your hands.
    Indeed some books the Catholic Church rejected, are no longer even extant.
    IF the Catholic Church were not infallible, the book in your hand wouldn’t be the inspired word of God but the word of man ( heretics)
    Your faith in the bible, rest on the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.
    If you say they are not infallible, you can kiss your bible goodbye, and you can have no certainty that what you are reading is the word of God or not…

    You said “Why not when referring to the brothers of Jesus?” Well the article already answered this
    Obviously they weren’t trying to make a point about that, but were just using the Jewish idiom they were used to.
    Why they chose to be more careful with St Elizabeth, I don’t know of the top of my head – but in any case – so what?
    Doubtless there is a reason, but its too peripheral. Maybe to show St John the Baptist was of the same Davidic line as Mary…

    Your next statement
    “Also, you say that it is my personal interpretation that I live by. And you say that we need an authority outside of Scripture to
    determine what Scripture teaches. Is not the way you interpret councils, popes, and doctrines different than other Roman Catholics?
    What external authority do you have to interpret the massive amount of documents that have been written over the years about what the
    Bible teaches? If you don’t have one then how can you criticize me for only having the Bible as my authority?”

    No, I am not different to other true Catholics.
    Of course I have an authority to interpret the “the massive amount of documents that have been written over the years” its the Roman Catholic Church
    You are not allowed to interpret anything contrary to the way Holy Mother Church interprets it,( if you would avoid error, that is )
    So you just need to inform yourself what the Church, authoritively teaches.

    Look if General Motors put out a work shop manual, should I interpret it how I please, or wouldn’t I be more sensible
    to follow the interpretation of the people that wrote it ( This applies likewise to the bible )
    The true Church of Christ wrote and compiled the bible – and their interpretation is infallible – so I trust them.
    The Church is the incarnation of the body of Christ on earth – and is trustworthy.
    If she weren’t you can kiss all Christianity good bye, and we can never be certain of anything.

    Do you know we are saved by “Faith in God”, NOT BY… “faith in our own faith”…. ( which is certain to be mistaken – especially if we have made it up ourselves )
    Indeed (to be more accurate), we can only be saved by, Divine and Catholic – Faith Hope and Charity.
    We cannot be saved by having faith in our own faith – a hman faith we have invented ourselves – not revealed by Gods Holy Church, who He entrusted with this mission.
    And said He would be with till the end of time.

    Here’s an honest person “The Eunuch’s words to Philip the deacon (Acts8:31) “But how shall I know (how to understand Scripture), unless someone show me?”
    Not thinking he can interpret the bible as he pleases, but asking a deacon of the Church”
    Enquiring of the Church – and not any Church, but the Church founded by Christ….

    and 2 Peter 3:16 “As also in all his epistles(st Paul), speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”
    So guess what – no private interpration here….indeed warned against as leading to damnation.

    Next you say

    “If you cannot find it written in the pages of Scripture then how can we know it is true? Simply stating that the church tells you
    doesn’t answer the question. We need to go to Scripture and read it for what it says not what others say it says.”

    There are plenty of things that are true but not in te bible. eg 2+3=5, Travis is a person.
    We can be morally certain these are true. As for propositions of religion we need to have an even higher degree of certitude, we need to believe them with a
    Divine and Catholic Faith as being revealed by God. ( eg. not being our own personal fallible mis interpretations of the bible !!)

    Yes, the True Church telling us something, DOES answer the question, if the infallible Church of God declares something
    as being revealed by God and true, you can be absolutely certain, it is infalliably true.

    You seem to suffer from that other ( man made ) protestant error of sola scriptura
    I know our debate isn’t about that, but briefly there is also Catholic “Tradition”, what has been passed down and not covered in the bible
    for “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” John 21:25

    The fact is, the bible itself is a tradition handed down to us by the Church – The bible is part of Tradition.(with a capital T)
    Guess what, we were talking about the meaning of words, these are also traditions passed down to us, not directly by the church
    but instrumental in helping us and the Church faithfully interpret ancient writings. So, you seem quite happy, to use these extra biblical traditions….

    Fortunately the early Christians didn’t believe in “sola scriptura” for if they had they would have told the apostles and St Paul to get lost,
    because they couldn’t prove what they were saying about the New Testament from the bible, because the New Testament and the Bible hadn’t
    even been compiled by the Catholic Church yet. Fortunately, they believed in what came down, by way of Tradition.

    Your next statement is totally illogical – look at what you are saying.
    “We need to go to Scripture and read it for what it says not what others say it says”
    So don’t listen to any authority, and have each person constitute himself, his own (mistakenly infallible authority/church) and interpret it how he pleases, not listening to any others.
    ( Mind you they are bringing to bear the meaning of words – their mother taught them…. unavoidably listening to others here… )

    Clearly this is ridiculous, a recipe for disaster, with a hundred fold different interpretation, and a tower of babel, and error.
    Now, (obviously), logic should tell you they all can’t all be correct…. duh…
    This idea is a manifest failure and results in a hundred different sects, constantly splitting from one another, as is the sad case with protestantism.
    If you can see this as a punishment for un faithfullness – hey maybe you’r right.

    The sad thing is those that hold to this doctrine ( sola scriptura ) despite saying they dont follow traditions, are holding to a doctrine&tradition given to them by men,
    sadly a false and lying doctrine, that has lead them astray, ( and for good measure – isnt found in the bible anyway….)
    Acts 20:30 “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.”
    ( sola scriptura ) is not scriptural !!! – far from it. Yet this (false) tradition of wayward men, this protestants have believed…..

    Next you quote Cyril of Jerusalem, yes most Catholic doctrine can be substantiated by the bible,
    ( as interpreted by the True church, from whence it came ) as I have endeavored to show you.

    But if you want to follow Cyril of Jerusalem, why don’t you believe all his other teaching, for he was thoroughly Catholic.
    Believing and teaching Catholics doctrines still held by the Roman Church to this day.
    ( No protestants existed of course until Martin Luther around 1600 – before then all the Christian world, ( except for a very few heretics ) – were Catholics )

    In fact, I personally believe all the consistent teachings of the fathers of the Church and all that the Church itself teaches without
    ANY contradictions. Whereas protestants need to pick and choose what they believe because its impossible for them
    to have a consistent view because they already rejected True authoritative teachings, for self interpretation ( and deception ).

    I am sorry I have drifted off course, but I felt obliged to answer some of your other comments.

    Lets us both pray to God, for His Wisdom and Guidance, that all may come to a knowledge of the Truth
    ( “For God desires the salvation of all men” )

    Yours in Charity

    Mark

    • Hey Mark,

      Mark: “or insist that ‘first born’ implies other children when the overabundance of Scripture clearly refutes your understanding?”

      Me: I never used that as an argument so I am not sure why you brought it up?

      Mark: You quoted, “I printed out transcripts of the online ‘heos hou’ arguments made by these Protestant apologists and showed them to several Greek scholars. They laughed, treating them with scornful derision.”

      Me: So, is there a place in Scripture where “heos hou’ is used and what it referred to did not change? The answer is no.

      Mark: “Your faith in the bible, rest on the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.
      If you say they are not infallible, you can kiss your bible goodbye, and you can have no certainty that what you are reading is the word of God or not…”

      Me: I do not need an authority outside or above Scripture for me to know what Scripture is. The Scriptures themselves are inspired and self-evidenced to be so. Also you are big on saying that “tradition” is consistent with your view. You do know that Jerome and Pope Gregory ‘the Great’ had different canonical lists than you right? Just wondering. Also, I think this is a great defense against your claim and it comes from Scripture.

      In Matthew 22 the Sadducees ask Jesus about marriage after the resurrection. Jesus gives an interesting answer in verses 29-33 when he says:

      But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

      Jesus holds the Sadducees to Scripture. However, the magisterium wasn’t set up yet to define what was and what was not Scripture. Wouldn’t Jesus know that? How could Jesus hold them to Scripture? According to your view they should have told Jesus, “How can you hold the Scriptures against us because we don’t know infallibly that they are Scripture?”

      Mark: “Yes, the True Church telling us something, DOES answer the question, if the infallible Church of God declares something
      as being revealed by God and true, you can be absolutely certain, it is infallibly true.”

      Me: How do you know this? Isn’t this just your faith being placed in your faith that the church is infallible? You probably don’t this this is fair question but why would you do the same to me when you say, “We cannot be saved by having faith in our own faith – a human faith we have invented ourselves – not revealed by Gods Holy Church, who He entrusted with this mission.” Why the gross misrepresentation of my faith? I don’t place my faith in my faith. I place my faith in Christ Jesus. At the end of the day we both make fallible choices. You decided to follow Rome, which is a fallible choice. I decided to follow Scripture, which is a fallible choice. We both need to justify the reasons for why we choose so. Simply asserting that the Catholic Church is infallible isn’t enough. You need to prove it. Every time I hear a debate on the subject it is clear that papal infallibility is utterly fallacious. Pope Honorius is just one example of so. But, thats another topic.

      Mark: “In fact, I personally believe all the consistent teachings of the fathers of the Church and all that the Church itself teaches without
      ANY contradictions. Whereas protestants need to pick and choose what they believe because its impossible for them to have a consistent view because they already rejected True authoritative teachings, for self interpretation ( and deception ).”

      Me: I can allow the early church fathers to be the early church fathers. I can allow them to speak and I can take the good things they say (those according to Scripture) and discard the bad things they say (those that don’t). You cannot do so. You must make them like the modern Catholic but many of the early fathers had no idea about the marian doctrines. But even more how does your faith in the consistent teaching of the early church fathers account for Cyril of Jerusalem’s quote that I mentioned earlier. He says, “In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures,” and, “The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.”

      I would like to comment more but I have to go to work.

      Thanks for the conversation,

      Travis

  5. Just one more observation, a Protestant ( protestor ) is someone who doesn’t believe what God teaches…,but rather believes what he himself ( erroneously) reveals to himself, about what he reads from scripture.
    So rather than believing what God has revealed, he believes and has faith in his own interpretations.

    So as I have said, he puts faith not in what God reveals ( through his Church ) but puts faith, in his own faith
    Rejecting the true revelation of Christ, and His Church, for something of his own invention….

    Sorry, but that just wont save you – because its not the True, Divine and Catholic Faith revealed to us by Christ, which God obliges us to accept.
    Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

    Sorry no room for making up your own religion here.

    After all Christianity is a revealed religion. ( And you don’t reveal it to yourself – picking and choosing as you please )
    This is why the Catholic Church infallibly teaches “No Salvation outside the Church”
    To be saved, and go to Heaven, it is necessary to believe in the one True Faith “without which it is impossible to please God” and you must hold this Faith, full and entire.
    If you reject even one defined infallible Catholic teaching, you are rejecting Christ and His revelation to man, doubting His teaching and His church.
    If you would be saved, you must become a Traditional Roman Catholic.
    Holding to and believing, what the Catholic Church has always taught and believed.

    Besides, the truth will set you free, from error ( albeit, self imposed )
    Stop believing in yourself, and start believing in the efficacy of Christ and what He has established for our Salvation.

  6. Dear Travis,

    Yes I appreciate it is time consuming and difficult to respond quickly.
    I myself, need to go back to work on Tuesday, so I am a bit time poor also.
    Do take your time to reply to me if you wish, (I might be constrained to do the same).

    I wont address every single thing you said, just what I think are the most important.

    Briefly ( Having decided to adopting this more clear style of yours )

    Travis: “So, is there a place in Scripture where ‘heos hou’ is used and what it referred to did not change? The answer is no.”

    Me: Yes in many places, that was the purport of the article, and they gave many examples – so please take your time to read it
    But briefly as I quoted earlier “showed them to several Greek scholars. They laughed, treating them with scornful derision.
    They confirmed what I already knew: that ‘heos hou’ is just shorthand for ‘heos hou chronou en hoi’ (literally: ‘until the time when’),
    and that both ‘heos’ and ‘heos hou’ have the same RANGE of meaning. (Envoy Magazine, May/June, 1997, p. 52-53)

    So “until the time when” implies nothing about what occurred after that, besides the article gives very many other arguments
    why this whole idea is untenable ( and offensive ) – If you knew the honor of God you wouldn’t say it….

    Travis: ” I do not need an authority outside or above Scripture for me to know what Scripture is.
    The Scriptures themselves are inspired and self-evidenced to be so”

    Me: Well despite you saying so, the truth is you have relied on the Authority of the Catholic Church, to collect preserve and define
    the Cannon of the bible for you – you weren’t exactly around at the time” – give credit where credit is due.
    Further more you are relying on them having gotten it right.

    If you are interested in the history of it I can post a Catholic summary of it here for you
    ( Evidently finally confirmed as a Cannon, at the council of Trent in l546 ( But yes, less authoritively proclaimed even earlier than this )
    What you may not realize is that the Church merely affirms the Truth – it doesnt create it…
    That is why you might have some misunderstandings about it. The Cannon of the Bible was always the Cannon of the Bible
    but only, definitively affirmed by the Church, in l546. The Church inerrantly attests to the truth, so we can infallibly know it.
    The Truth is always the Truth, The Church is just a inerrant faithful witness to it.
    ( So we are not left abandoned, having to guess at it ourselves )

    When you say “do not need an authority outside or above Scripture” Well you believe the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, do you not?
    Well, thats at least one authority, above the scriptures, you would do well to profess as an Authority, as to why you think they are the word of God.
    But since, you yourself, are not infallible, it still doesn’t solve the problem for you.
    And it certainly doesn’t solve your problem of how to infallibly interpret them, either.

    Then you say “and self-evidenced to be so” this is clearly nonsense, and not the case
    This might be a cherished Protestant belief, ( and a fall back position – since they have rejected the Teaching Authority of the True Church)
    But its simply, and plainly, demonstrably false.
    You ( and not I) have one immediate problem – no where in scripture does it teach this, in fact it teaches the opposite,
    as I gave you quotes for earlier “wresting scripture” etc ( rather this is merely a protestants, made up invention/doctrine ).
    What really frustrates me is when Protestant believe and assert things that are totally manifestly false and illogical.
    Why do they do this??? suspend all common sense and doggedly hold to obvious falsehoods that defy experience and common sense.
    Like holding ones breath and demanding it be true…. well it just wont work, no matter how much you try.

    “inspired and self-evidenced to be so” ok simple test, Do muslims, hindus, pagans, and all other religions think them to be
    self-evidently inspired” – No they don’t. Why, because no Authority they believe,tells them that is.

    Second common sense test for you, if its self evident what is inspired, why are there so many different opinions amongst
    protestants about what these inspired books teach. ( I’d suggest to you – its not exactly self evident but clearly prone to misinterpretation )

    Third common sense test, If we got all the books together that ever purported to be scripture, and had independent people
    attempt to come up with books that thought were inspired, there would be No unanimity, Let alone books, people would want to excise
    any quotes or paragraphs they disagree with and or change them. And what would be the point anyway, even if they could compromise on something, it would be nothing
    more than a fallible collection. And if it is just a fallible collection, I would be better served to just make up my own cannon as I saw fit.
    ( Indeed making up my own religion, that pleased me – oh, and I could revise it when ever I wanted to )
    Sound familiar ? – Much what like Martin Luther did.
    And what modern protestants do when they just skip over and ignore certain passages, that they just don’t believe, and NEVER quote.
    ( picking and choosing what they will believe ) – in effect having a religion unique and tailored to themselves.
    Sadly, not the True religion, and not a religion, that can save them.

    Travis : Concerning your mis understandings about Jesus, the Sadducees, the Scriptures, and the Magisterium

    Me : First obvious point, Jesus was constantly correcting the jews about their mis reading and mis understanding of the scripture.
    It should be patently evident, that Jesus DIDNT think the Jews were free to decide the meaning scriptures, of themselves.
    But rather, there was an Authoritative correct meaning, and if they didn’t conform to this, they were simply wrong, and in error.
    Sorry, no self interpretation of the Bible here also.

    Second, yes the Magisterium of the Church was not around at that time yet, because we had something better, God himself there
    in the flesh teaching them. Besides the Jews only had the Old Testament then anyway. So it doesn’t really make much sense to ask
    them to conform to something that God in his providence hadn’t materialized yet. ( Common sense should tell you that )

    Thirdly, Jesus Chris is the head of the Church, and thus the head of the Magisterium, after all, he IS God and cannot err.
    The Church received the Magisterium from Christ, so it receives its inerrancy from God
    Luke 10:16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
    Matthew 18:17 “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”
    Mark 16:16 “but whoever does not Believe will be condemned.”
    ( Oh, and He is not talking about believing what you want to believe, by trusting in yourself – otherwise no one would fail to “believe” )

    Jesus doesn’t correct them that they don’t have infallible scriptures, because Jesus ( being God ) knows they DO have infallible scriptures.
    There problem was they didn’t know how to interpret them properly – sound familiar ?
    ( I would rather listen to Jesus, than the Jews – and so should you )

    Travis : “How do you know this? Isn’t this just your faith being placed in your faith that the church is infallible?”

    Me: No not at all, What I believe is scripturally based also, see the above two quote, and there are many more besides
    ( Admittedly this might appear a little bit of a circular answer, (at least to Non Christians who don’t believe in the Bible anyway)
    but at least my answer IS consistent unlike someone who picks and chooses from scripture and refuses to submit to the above two quotes,
    and go off ,and make up his own religion.
    That is clearly, an inconsistent and illogical position.

    I can of course,can give a more fulsome answer to your question, but it is best addressed in reference, to one of your later points…..

    Travis : “I place my faith in Christ Jesus.”

    Me: I simply don’t believe you, I still say you put your trust in yourself, and your judgements, and not in Jesus Christ.
    Because if you really believed in Jesus Christ, you would believe in ALL that he taught.
    You and I both know, there are many many things that Jesus taught and you don’t believe ( otherwise you would be a Roman Catholic )
    We cant discuss every single thing in scriptures and Tradition that Catholics believe and protestants don’t.
    Just take the above two quotes, about the Authority God vests in His Church, protestants have decided to reject the clear teachings of
    Jesus Christ on this. Likewise they reject there is an Authoritative Church, whose interpretation of scriptures they must conform to.
    Jesus Christ, clearly rejects, self interpretation of the scripture – yet protestants wont believe Him, and insist on interpreting Scripture for themselves.

    Travis: “At the end of the day we both make fallible choices. You decided to follow Rome, which is a fallible choice.
    I decided to follow Scripture, which is a fallible choice.”

    Me: This is really starting to show a fundamental difference between us. I still dont agree with you.
    ( Other than to say – yes “you” made a fallible choice, and sadly “you” are wrong, – because “you” believed in – “yourself”….. )
    Not so, myself.

    2 Thessalonians 2:10
    “because they refuse to love and accept the Truth that would save them. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion,
    so that they may believe what is false,in order that all may be condemned, who did not believe the Truth”

    As regards True Christianity however you are on a very dangerous path ( if you were correct – which fortunately, you are not ).
    Because what you are saying is, that in the end, we cannot have any surety of our faith, and what we believe is merely the
    subjective, sum total of all our (fallible) human, decisions and opinions.

    If I believed this, I would give up Christianity in an instant, dismissing it as unknown, and unknowable, and consequently, nothing more than a delusion.

    In other words, what you are saying is, that we cannot really know the Truth, and since Jesus Chris IS the Truth ( “I AM the way the truth and the life” )
    that we cannot really know Jesus Christ either – ( or what He really taught us, for that matter ) or what is the correct path and “way” for us to follow.

    Yet, the Bible tells us in John 17:3 “Now this is Eternal Life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
    So it IS possible to know the Truth, with surety – In other words, with DIVINE and Catholic Faith.
    And this is Eternal Life, to know Jesus Christ ( and NOT, to be deceived about that, and not to rely on ourselves.)

    Unlike you , I have NOT made a fallible choice to follow the True Roman Catholic Church.
    I know, and believe, I have made an infallibly correct choice, to follow God and His True Church.
    Not that I myself am infallible, let me explain….

    When we are Baptized we are infused with Supernatural, ( Divine and Catholic) Faith, Hope and Charity
    Further the priest anoints our eyes and ears – so that later we can see, hear and Recognize the Truth
    These are Supernatural gifts, gratuitous gifts of God, that are Above Human nature, and that adopt us as Children of God.
    Giving us new, supernatural faculties.
    Baptism, conveys REAL and Supernatural Gifts, and Graces.

    So the Faith that I have is Not a product of my human nature, that’s why I always said its “Divine” and Catholic Faith, given to me by God
    and being Divine, and led on by Gods Divine Grace, it cannot deceive me, and is infallibly True.
    Not because of who I am, but because of who God IS. ( Its is His Grace, not mine )
    John 10:27 “My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me” ( Follow Him, – and not, follow ourselves… )

    However, if I harden my Heart, and reject Gods Grace and Guidance, I can loose my Divine and Catholic Faith.
    Likewise, if I were to reject this True Faith, and chose to invent my own faith, again I can loose my Divine and Catholic faith
    ( Having preferred a human, and fallible erroneous faith, of my own liking and invention ).
    Mind you, if I were to repent and pray to God, and accept His True Church – God would welcome us back, and restore our Divine and Catholic True Faith.

    Put your trust in God and not in man.

    Yours

    Mark

    • Hey Mark,

      Mark: “Well despite you saying so, the truth is you have relied on the Authority of the Catholic Church, to collect preserve and define the Cannon of the bible for you – you weren’t exactly around at the time” – give credit where credit is due. Further more you are relying on them having gotten it right.

      If you are interested in the history of it I can post a Catholic summary of it here for you ( Evidently finally confirmed as a Cannon, at the council of Trent in l546 ( But yes, less authoritively proclaimed even earlier than this )”

      Me: This is a great example of ignoring my arguments. Here is what I wrote last time on this subject that you never addressed:

      “The Scriptures themselves are inspired and self-evidenced to be so. Also you are big on saying that “tradition” is consistent with your view. You do know that Jerome and Pope Gregory ‘the Great’ had different canonical lists than you right? Just wondering? Also, I think this is a great defense against your claim and it comes from Scripture.

      In Matthew 22 the Sadducees ask Jesus about marriage after the resurrection. Jesus gives an interesting answer in verses 29-33 when he says:

      But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

      Jesus holds the Sadducees to Scripture. However, the magisterium wasn’t set up yet to define what was and what was not Scripture. Wouldn’t Jesus know that? How could Jesus hold them to Scripture? According to your view they should have told Jesus, “How can you hold the Scriptures against us because we don’t know infallibly that they are Scripture?” ”

      I do not have a lot of time the next few days to respond and I wish I could respond more fully but I would like you to address two questions that I raised earlier in our conversation. #1 Why does Pope Gregory the Great and Jerome have different canonical lists than you if you believe in the universal agreement of the church? #2 How could Jesus hold the Sadducees to Scripture if there was no magisterium to tell them it was Scripture?

      Mark: “Unlike you , I have NOT made a fallible choice to follow the True Roman Catholic Church.
      I know, and believe, I have made an infallibly correct choice, to follow God and His True Church.
      Not that I myself am infallible, let me explain…”

      Me: I have never heard a Catholic say they were infallible. I thought that only the Pope was infallible when speaking on faith and morals…guess I was wrong. Are you truly suggesting that your decision isn’t fallible? That would be a very proud thing to say I would think especially because every Catholic I have spoken with would totally disagree with you.

      Thanks for commenting,

      Travis

Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: