Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Subject: ROMAN CATHOLISM
Replies: 79 Views: 2138
endtimes 20.05.11 - 12:44pm
In Greek, Peter is petros , masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,
petra , feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra , what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: Thou art Little Rock , and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will buildmy Church.
To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of
Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peters statement of FACT Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God. That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom.
Unfortunately, what the most famous early believers taught is not always considered by the Vatican to be the Sacred Tradition on which doctrines are based. For example, the great Augustine, besides opposing Peter as the Churchs foundation rock, staunchly opposed the doctrine of Marys Immaculate Conception which budded in the 5 th century. The equally influential Aquinas did the same 800 years later. Hence, as in the Immaculate Conception matter, the Vatican totally disregarded the early theologians teachings about Matthew 16:18, even though Christ as recorded in Johns Gospel had given Peter the same name of small rock or stone in Aramaic long beforethe events at Caesarea Philippi. when Jesus beheld him, (Peter) he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona:thou shalt be called Cephas, which isby interpretation, A stone. (John 1:42) That Matthew 16:18 can in no way be interpreted as an appointment of Peter to be the first pope is even more evident when other Scriptures from both the Old and New Testament are considered.
Beginning in Exodus, the Old Testament is full of references to Jesus, the coming Messiah, as the foundation rock of saving faith. He itis who is symbolized by the rocks out of which came fresh water in Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:10. Moses, in Deuteronomy 32:4, wrote, He (Jesus) is the ROCK. Rebuking the Nation of Israel in 32:18, he said, Of the ROCK that begat thee thou art unmindful. And in 32:31, he said, their (the enemys) rock is not as our ROCK. In her prayer for a man child recorded in 1 Samuel 2:2, Hannah says, neither is there any ROCK like our God. And David, just escaped from Saul, in 2 Samuel 22:2 gives credit for his safety this way: The LORD is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer .
Clear references to our Lord as the ROCK spoken of throughout the Scriptures, also are found in Psalms 18, 28, 31, 40, 42, 61, 62, 71, 78, 89, 92, 94, and 95. See also Isaiah 8:14, 17:10, and 51:1. In Hebrew, the word for rock is cela, and its definition is crag, cliff, rock, definitely not the kind of rock or stone one launches at a squirrel on the bird feeder *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 12:46pm
In the New Testament, our Lords parable of the wise and foolish builders, recorded in Matthew 7 andLuke 6, leaves no doubt that Jesus, not Peter, is the foundation rock on which those who are wise establish their faith. Paul recognized Christ was the nation of Israels rock and the foundation of Christianity as well. . (they, the Jews) did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:4) Earlier, in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul made absolutely certain there would be no mistaking upon whom Christs Church was being built. For other foundation can no man lay than thatis laid, which is Jesus Christ.
The foregoing cited Scriptures not only dont support Romes claim thatPeter was ordained a pope, the first in the Vaticans alleged unbroken chain of popes, they actually contradict the claim, and they contradict it most emphatically. Moreover, one comes up empty again when trying to find passages that show Peter and the other Apostles, Paul included, were clearly aware of Peters election to leadership by Jesus. Nor is it obviousfrom Gods Word that Peter spent enough time in Rome to have functioned as that citys first bishop.
In his own first epistle, Peter acknowledges a title far different from bishop or pope. Says he, The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an ELDER. (1 Peter 5:1)
Then he says: Feed the flock of Godwhich is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as BEING LORDS over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. From these words in particular, and from the general tenor of both his letters,one concludes that Peter had no idea he had been ordained the first pope of a Church that did not come into existence until the 5 th century.
In the account of the Churchs first general council reported in Acts 15, it is James, the brother of Jesus, and not Peter, who provides the solutionto the problem under discussion. (Cf.Acts 15:13-23.) Even before that council, Peter was not acting like the supreme leader of the flock. Rather than directing the actions of others, he was being directed, as the following attests. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, THEY SENT unto them Peter and John. (Acts 8:14) It was the same John, who, along with his brother James, had sought
from Jesus the promise of sitting one on His right hand, and one on His left in the coming kingdom. This,long after Matthew 16:18 had takenplace, and a clear indication that theApostles had no idea Peter had been ordained their leader. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 12:49pm
There is additional biblical evidencerefuting the Vaticans alleged Petrine papacy to be found in Pauls letter to the Roman Churches. At the end of that letter, he salutes 27 named individuals, none of whom isPeter. Why is that if Peter was bishop of Rome? Also, in Acts 23, Paul not knowing it was the High Priest he was addressing, called hima whited wall. (Acts 23:3) When informed that his epithet had been directed at the High Priest, Paul wasinstantly repentant. Said he, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. But in his
letter to the Galatian churches Paul is openly critical of Peter, saying, when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed . (Acts 2:11) What Paul said directly to Peter in front of many witnesses was this: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Acts 2:14) If Peter had been ordained bishop of Rome and head of the Church, Paul certainly would have been aware of the fact and would not have been openly critical of him in front of others.
Finally, still consulting the Scriptures, we learn that Paul, not Peter, received the Gospel directly from the lips of Jesus. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel whichwas preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11,12) And in 2 Peter 3:16, we get the impression that at least some of what Christ had given to Paul was not known to Peter, for he says that in Pauls letters are some things hard to be understood. Inevitably comes this question, if Jesus made Peter head of the Church, why was Paul the one chosen to receive the Gospel directly from our Lord?
The binding and loosing authority the Vatican claims exclusively for its popes was given
to all of the Apostles, not just Peter; (Matthew 18:18) and, in fact to all believers when
Jesus said, Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven; For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18: 19,20)
When all of the Scriptures having to do with Peters alleged ordination as pope are reviewed it becomes manifestly clear that he was only one of twelve chosen men, who willsit on twelve thrones in the millennium, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). A bishop of Rome he was not. A pope he was not. And when historical facts are studied as will be done in a separate article they will positively confirm what has already been seen in the divine Scriptures. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 03:02pm
The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson
The Fallacy of Catholicism's Papacy, Part II
JOHN
SCHROEDER
Contender Ministries
Posted: September 5, 2003
As a 4-year-old child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent orsibling, I would emote as follows:
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what-
soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed
in heaven.
Those words, I was taught, spoken by Christ to the Apostle Peter, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter was the first pope, and that hewas the rock on which Christ built His Church - the Roman Catholic Church, the only true Church. It is upon these two vitally important Scriptures, therefore, that the entire Roman Catholic monolith is supported. For, if Peter is not Catholicisms foundation rock, if he was not the first pope, if he was not endowed with infallibility, then all its popes have been frauds, and all its claims of divine authorization are reduced to wishful vagaries. In this critical matter, history not anti-Catholic heretics is the Vaticans most relentless, indefatigable enemy. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 03:08pm
It shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3 rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I,whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lords legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesnt produce a boss. The great Tertullian,bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a usurper. In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you wont find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.
Nor will you find Rome confessing tothe faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writers opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13 th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.
Thou art Peter, and on this Rock petra which thou hast confessed,
on this rock which thou hast known, saying: Thou art Christ, the Son
of the living God, I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son
of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.
Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven. But history is history, and allthe name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo get this, now in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY . Moreover, Augustines conviction based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 03:15pm
Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lords brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successoras bishop of Rome, with binding andloosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to churchhistorian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at oncean issue, and Stephens effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I.
So, even when Constantine the Great convoked the famous Council of Nicaea early in the FOURTH CENTURY there was no pope and no papacy. Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Romes papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus highest priest. Inasmuch as the Pontifex Maximus title is one of the many applied to Roman Catholic popes, Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time, should have had that title if hewas the reigning pope. He was not the pope or a pope, and he was not even in attendance at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 03:31pm
In that fourth century, five episcopates emerged as jurisdictional centers to which individual independent churches could look for counsel in ecclesiastical matters. These five were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. In AD 387, just before the Roman Empire split into separate East and West divisions, Siricius, another bishop of Rome, once again tried to highjack Christendom, and with the same result as Calixtus and Stephen. Nobody paid any attention.
More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at theFIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that citys bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches. In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie,Augustine was the secretary. Historyshows he fully supported the synods decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:25pm
The actual hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of Rome, then, did not take place in the first 500 years after Christ. In truth, it hasnt really taken place at all, because the eastern branch of Christendom has never accepted Romes self-assumed primacy. For the beginning of the successful takeover of the western branch of Christianity the Latin churches - wemust move to the very middle of theFIFTH CENTURY, to the episcopate ofLeo 1 (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome AD 440-461. He assumed the title, Primate of All Bishops, and for validation of his theft obtained the endor t of Western RomanEmperor Valentinian III. Wonderful!A self-styled Vicar of Christ seeking not the approval of God - but the approval of a secular entity to be the Vicar of Christ.
Leo intimidated a lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, Lord of the Whole Church, butwhen he declared that resisting his absolute authority would condemn a soul to the fires of hell, the delegates to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon put their collective feet down. Leo was denied his endor t, and at the end of the fifth century, there still was no popeand no papacy. What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of apostolic succession and an unbroken chain of popes stretching all the way back to Peter. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:28pm
The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-yearepiscopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor tothe Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say:
I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-ChristSt. Peter is not called Universal Apostle .Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.
To the bishop of Antioch in another letter, Gregory wrote that the title of Universal (Catholic) Bishop was:
profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate.
No matter that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone claiming to beuniversal (katholikos) bishop wouldin fact be Anti-Christ. A successor, Boniface III, AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon himthat very title of Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom. The eastern churches refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface and all his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only the western churches. Historically, then Romes claims of a papacy begun with Peter and stretching down the annals of time to the present are proven falsehoods.
And, even after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of Rome the coveted title of papa, there was stubborn resistance to their claimed authority lasting into the ninth century. Then, in the episcopate of Nicholas I (Nicholas the Great), bishop of Rome AD 858-867, documents known today as the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared on the stage of history. Contained in this fortuitous discovery were letters allegedly written by popes prior to Nicaea (AD 325) and from Clement 1 to Miltiades. All are blatant forgeries ! (They had to be, for there were no popes and no papacy in that time frame.) *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:31pm
Also included in the collection were letters of popes from Sylvester 1 (4 th century) to Gregory II (8 th century) in which are more than 40 falsifications. But the most pope-friendly inclusion in the decretals was a document entitled, The Donation of Constantine. Thought to be authentic for 600 years, and used successfully by bishops of Rome as grounds for theirclaims to primacy, it actually contained the ultimate proof that popes and the papacy are NOT DIVINELY ORDAINED, but are simply another invention of mere mortals.
On the one hand, Rome teaches thatChrist ordained Peter as the head of His Church, the rock on which it was founded, and the first pope. But for 600 years from the ninth to the fifteenth century, the Donation of Constantine was invoked as the historical event granting to bishops of Rome ecclesiastical authority over all of Christendom and its episcopates, and temporal power over Rome and the entire Western Roman Empire.
Allegedly donated by Constantine the Great to Sylvester 1, bishop of Rome AD 314-335, it was used by Nicholas I to dispel opposition to popes and the papacy, and history shows that, from the ninth century to the present, bishops of Rome have been unopposed as exclusive occupants of the office of pope. In AD 1054, Leo IX tried to use the Donation of Constantine to secure control of the eastern as well as the western churches. The patriarch of Constantinople suggested Leo should mind his own business, and the split of the eastern (Orthodox) churches from Rome became permanent thereafter.
The Donation of Constantine was shown to be a deliberate forgery in AD 1440 by Lorenzo Valla, but not before the Vatican had used it to permanently secure its position of primacy over the entire western church, and to exercise nearly absolute control over kings and nations for 500 years as well. What is most interesting about this forgeddocument and Romes use of it, is the secular source from which Romeallegedly derived its ecclesiastical and temporal power - its papacy. Where in history do we find Constantine invested with the power and authority to appoint a monarch over the Church of the living God? Isnt the use of the Donation of Constantine by numerous popes eloquent proof that popes and the papacy are frauds, not initiated by Christ, but founded on the forged documents of men greedy for power? *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:34pm
From The Times
October 5, 2005
Catholic Church no longer swearsby truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect total accuracy from the Bible.
We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision, they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:36pm
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwins theory of evolution in schools, believing intelligent design to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, inwhich two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this countrys Catholic bishops insist cannot be historical. At most, they say, they may contain historical traces.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting anear-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocatingthe Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope PiusX condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of an*lysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is Gods word expressed in human language and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:38pm
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other,secular matters.
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its intransigent intolerance and to warn of significant dangers involved in a fundamentalist approach.
Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, His blood be on us and on our children, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had tragic consequences in encouraging hatred and persecution. The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:39pm
The bishops say: Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal CormacMurphy-OConnor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith OBrien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued aspart of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. We haverediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:41pm
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph hadnamed their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised 200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, Its a Boy . Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: There are over 12 million children in the UK andonly 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a womanand brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: His blood be on us and on our children.
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.
TRUE
Exodus iii, 14
God reveals himself to Moses as: I am who I am.
Leviticus xxvi,12
I will be your God, and you shall be my people.
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Mark viii,29
Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
JOIN THE DEBATE
www.timesonline.co.uk/debate *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:52pm
Scriptural Proof: Mary is Not the Mother of God
JOHN
SCHROEDER
Contender Ministries
Posted: November 22, 2003
In the 4 th century, when Constantine the Great appointed himself Pontifex Maximus supreme head of the Christian Church, pagans and their pagan beliefs began infiltrating Christendom. Among the most influential of the new converts were those from the Mediterranean and Middle East areas where worship of the Great Mother Goddess and the Divine Virgin had existed since Babylon. According to Britannica, these groups:
.found within the Christian Churcha new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary as the virgin mother of God, in whom was achieved the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature. (Britannica, Christianity : The doctrine of the Virgin Mary and holy Wisdom.)
By the end of the 4 th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine asthe Christ-bearer, (Greek Christotokos, ) was being referred to as the God-bearer, ( theotokos .) Thuswas born the doctrine of Mary, mother of God, a title foreign to Scripture where she is called only the mother of Jesus. At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to existhere in the 21 st century.
Anastasius was immediately supported in his position by Nestorius, bishop of the Constantinople church, who believed that the theotokos title adversely affected the fact of our Lords full humanity. Cyril, powerful bishop of Alexandria, motivated as much by envy of Constantinoples standing among the eastern churches as he was by the theological aspects of the controversy, joined battle over the issue with Nestorius, outflanked him at the AD 431 First Council of Ephesus, and succeeded in confirming Mary as the mother of God. Nestorius, falsely accused of separating Christs two natures human and divine subsequently was excommunicated, then sacked as bishop of Constantinople by the emperor, Theodosius II, who had appointed him in the first place. He died in exile, but the controversy lives on. Is Mary the mother or Jesus? Or is she, a created being, the mother of eternal God? *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:55pm
The Roman Catholic Church and certain mainline churches that split from Rome during or following the Reformation, declare unequivocally that Mary is, in fact, the mother of God. Those historically and currently who oppose this teaching are accused, aswas Nestorius, of dividing Christ into an earthly Jesus and a heavenly Jesus, thereby denying the essential unity of our Lords two natures. But that is merely an unproved and unprovable accusation. Christ, in fact, had two distinct natures fused into a single human body, a mystery quite as hidden to man as three distinct persons comprising a single Godhead. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus only is no more a division of Christs two natures than acknowledging Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father is a division of the Godhead. Both are mysteries akin to that of a virgin being with child allegedly conceived by that same unborn childbecause He is a member of the Godhead. Shades, in other words, of the Babylonian Mystery religion.
In a document entitled, The Mother of Jesus , published by the Catholic Information Service of the Knights of Columbus, justification for calling Mary the mother of God iscapsulized in the following two paragraphs:
In the natural and normal process ofhuman reproduction, when both maternal and paternal functions unite, God simultaneously creates the human soul which enlivens the fecundated ovum in the womans womb, and thus a human person is conceived. It is always an individuals human nature a person who possesses human nature. (Emphasis added.)
It matters not that the woman has no part in the production of the spiritual element (directly created by God) in the human nature of the person she conceives. It suffices thatshe has supplied the bodily substance which goes into the constitution of human nature possessed by the person, that she rightly acquires the title of mother. (Emphasis added.) *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:56pm
No one disputes the fact that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus even though she was not the supplier of His human soul.Nor is there any question that the man Christ Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. Whatis disputed is the extension of the title mother to a divine nature that eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin. A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Marys body. He is without beginning has always existed and has no mother.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.) (Psalm 90:2) Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. (Psalm 93:2) But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, (Psalm 103:17) Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD. (Psalm 106:48) *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 05:58pm
That Jesus had two natures one created and one eternal - united in a single human body is beyond question. That only one of those two natures originated in Marys womb also is beyond question. And why she cannot then be called the mother of God finds anexact parallel in Christs relationshipto King David.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David : (Luke 1:32) And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? (Matt 12:23) And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David ; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. (Matt 15:22) And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. (Matt 20:30) And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David :Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. (Matt 21:9)
In these Scriptures it is clearly established that the nation of Israel expected their Messiah to derive as prophesied - from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, thereby attributing fatherhood of the Messiah to David in accordance with their method of reckoning descent. But David cannotbe called the father of God because of his relationship to the man Christ Jesus. Our Lord Himself preempted any possibility of that erroneous belief. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 06:01pm
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORDsaid unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemiesthy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that dayforth ask him any more questions. (Matt 22:42-46) Parallel accounts of this episode are found in Mark 12: 35-37, and Luke 20:41-44.
In these Scriptures, our Lordhas done what Roman Catholic apologists say may not be done. He has clearly drawn a line between the human nature and the eternal nature of Christ. He has clearly established the fact that David is NOT the father of God, because he is NOT the father of the second person of the blessed trinity. He has clearly shown this distinction of natures to be a mystery one the Jews of His day could not comprehend any better than the Roman Catholics or Christians of the 21 st century. This mystery of the two fused but separate natures manifest in Christ finds another reference in the following excerpt from the Gospel of John. When confronted by the Jews and constrained to identify himself, John the Baptists response included this interesting disclosure: For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him . (John 3:34) Certainly the Holy Spirit could not have been given to the Second Person of the trinity for He is part of that trinity. Sothe Holy Spirit that was given without measure was given only to the man Christ Jesus.
It stands to reason, then, that like King David to whom fatherhood ONLY of the man Christ Jesus is attributed - Mary is the Mother ONLY of the man Christ Jesus.To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, let us insert Marys name in place of King Davids in the previously cited Scriptures:
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of MARY . He saith unto them, How then doth MARY callhim Lord, saying, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hathrejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47) If MARY then call him Lord, how is he her son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
To insist that Mary is Christotokos only and not theotokos is not to separate Jesus into a heavenly Jesus and an earthly Jesus as Roman Catholicism contends. It is merely recognizing what Jesus Himself made clear, that David was not the father of God, andby parallel reasoning, Mary was His earthly mother only, and not a Goddess or Queen of Heaven worthyof the title mother of God.
Because the Second Person of the blessed trinity is an eternal being having neither a beginning nor an ending, it was the man Christ Jesus who suffered as the second Adam on Calvary and died for the sins of the world. The Second Personof the trinity did not die, cannot die or be put to death. And its the man Christ Jesus not the Second Person of the trinity - who is said Scripturally to be the one mediator between God and man. (1 Tim 2:5) He who is eternal, who could not and cannot die, could not be, and was not , born of the virgin.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 06:04pm
The Myth of Marys Lifetime Virginity
JOHN
SCHROEDER
Contender Ministries
Posted: January 11, 2004
Both direct and cir tantial evidence in Gods Word the Bible clearly disproves the Roman Catholic Church claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin, not only prior to, but during and after our Lords miraculous birth. It was this perpetual virginity doctrine and several others that forced the infamous 16 th century Council of Trent to declare Sacred Tradition equal in every way to thedivine Scriptures, and to arrogate to itself alone the right to interpret both Scripture and so-called SacredTradition. As we review the Scriptural evidence applicable to this false doctrine, it will become crystal clear why the Vatican insists that its members abide by Romes determination of what certain controversial Scriptures actually mean.
Our first inkling that the lifetime virginity doctrine is only a myth is found in the first chapter of Matthews Gospel. In verse 18 and following, Gods Word tells us that Mary was espoused (engaged) to Joseph, but that, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. In the original Greek, the phrase came together is contained in the word, sunerchomai , soon-er'-khom-ahee whose meaning to the Jews of that era (Matthew was a Jew) meant conjugal cohabitation. A modern paraphrase of the Bibles statement would go something like this: Marywas found to be pregnant.before they consummated their marriage through normal s*xual intercourse.
Jewish marriages in the time of Christ consisted of a period of betrothal that preceded by several months the actual coming together in s*xual union. Espousal, or betrothal, however, confirmed the marriage as a valid contract, so, for Joseph to have put away secretly his espoused bride, he would have had to obtain a legal writ of divorcement. While he pondered the advisability of such anaction, he was informed by an angelin a dream that Mary was not guilty of adultery; that the Holy Ghost was the childs sire, and to have no fear of proceeding with the contracted marriage. (Matt 1:20, 21) There is not even the slightest hint in the angels words that a marital union with Mary was to be free of the normal physical privileges. Thus reassured, Joseph, being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife : And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son : and he called his name JESUS. (Mat 1:24, 25) *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 06:07pm
Two phrases in those Scripture verses, when added to the phrase, before they came together, createa very rocky road to lifetime virginity for Roman Catholic apologists. The phrase knew her not till is translated from the Greek words, 1) ginosko ghin-oce'-ko, 2) ouk ook, and 3) heos heh'-oce. Ginosko , here translated knew, is a Jewish idiom for s*xual intercourse between a man and a woman. (Strongs Lexicon 1097) The word ouk , here translated not, is clearly a negative denoting the act had not taken place. But heos , here translated till, is confirmation that the act did, in fact,take place after the child was delivered. To obviate in advance claims that the word till does not confirm that Mary and Joseph engaged in normal marital relationsfollowing Christs birth, the child Jesus is referred to in Gods Word as, her firstborn son: (Matt 1:25)
Roman Catholic apologists proclaim quite falsely that the word firstborn applies to an only child as well as to the first of multiple children. But a check of how the Greek word, prototokos pro-tot-ok'-os is used in the New Testament shows that claim to be quite without biblical support. The word appears nine times in the NewTestament, and with one possible but far from certain exception, it always means the first of more thanone. Six of the times it appears it is in reference to Jesus as either the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of mankind, or the firstborn of man who would come tobelieve in God through him. Bible references are: Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15 and 1:18; Hebrews 1:6 and 12:23; and Revelation 1:5. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 06:10pm
The one time it could possibly mean an only child is found in Hebrews 11:28. This particular verse is among several recounting the faith Moses exhibited as he led the children of Israel out of Egyptian captivity. Through faith he (Moses) kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touchthem. Reference here is made to the final plague visited upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians the death of every firstborn of man and beast not covered by the blood of the Passover sacrifice. Roman Catholic apologists speculate that some Egyptian families had but a single child, and therefore the word firstborn can apply to an only child, in this case, Jesus. But this is both an unprovable presumption, and not very likely, because large families were an economic necessity, a hedge against starvation and aggression.
The other two times prototokos appears in the New Testament are in Matthew 1:25, (previously cited) and Luke 2:7, which reads as follows: And she brought forth her firstborn son , and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. Twice, then, the inspired writers referred to our Lord as Marys firstborn son. But when Christs relationship to theFather is studied, we find Jesus the man described as Gods only begotten Son. For examples, see John 1:14, 1:18, 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1st John 4:9. The author of Gods Word the Holy Ghost has made it absolutely clear that the man Christ Jesus was the only human offspring of the Father. With this in mind, one questions why thatsame Holy Ghost - if Jesus really wasan only child - did not inspire Matthew and Luke to describe Marys delivery the same way. All speculation would have been obviated had they written: And shebrought forth her only son , etc.
To make the road even more difficult for Roman Catholic apologists, Scripture contains a parallel situation in which the birth of a genuine only child is reported. Recall if you will that Marys cousin, Elisabeth, and her cousins husband, Zacharias, not only were childless, but actually were past the time of life when they could expect to be blessed with offspring. The Bible tells it like this: And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. (Luke 1:7) Their advanced years notwithstanding, Elisabeth and Zacharias were blessed by the Lord with the miracle of John the Baptist. Gabriel brought the good news to Zacharias as he performed his priestly duty in the Temple. the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. (Luke 1:13) It is the following Scripture, the inspired writers description of Johns birth, that is especially worthy of note. Now Elisabeth's full time came thatshe should be delivered; and she brought forth a son. (Luke 1:57)
John the Baptist was the only son of Elisabeth and Zacharias. And so, the inspired writer correctly relates thatElisabeth brought forth not a firstborn son to be followed by other sons she simply brought forth a son . Since both the inspired writers say that Jesus was Marys firstborn son, we can be sure without going one bit further into the matter that at least one other son followed. In fact though, if the divine Word of God is to be believed,four other sons followed, and at least two daughters. *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 06:12pm
The following is from the Gospel of Matthew, an Apostle who knew Jesus and His family background intimately, even without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren , James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas. And his sisters , are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Matt 13:55, 56) These comments were made by people who knew Joseph and Mary and their family, for the Scripture tells us in the preceding verse: And when he (Jesus) was come into his own country , he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Matt 13:54) It bears repeating that these comments were made by people who most certainly knew the difference between blood brothers and sisters and mere cousins or kinfolk. We find a second report of this incident in the Gospel of Mark.
Is not this the carpenter , the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3) As additional assurance that those who were making these comments were very well acquainted with our Lords earthly family, we read: But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country , and among his own kin , and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. (Mark 6:4, 5) *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 06:14pm
In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos ad-el-fos'; forsisters, its adelphe ad-el-fay'. The word for cousin/kinfolk is suggenes soong-ghen-ace'. To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject tomisusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts. And that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does in the following entry from the 1994 Catechism.
Against this doctrine (Marys lifetime virginity) the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, brothers of Jesus, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls the other Mary. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)
What the Roman Catholic Church hasalways understood, and what the Scriptures clearly say are as far apart in this case as Rome is from the South Pole. When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrews brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary andMartha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christs named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two namedsons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didnt get it right is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)
The Word of God could not have made it any clearer that Mary had four sons besides Jesus, and that Jesus had both brothers and sisters. Following is a list of New Testamentverses that simply cannot be misconstrued no matter how loudly the Roman Catholic apologists protest *
endtimes 20.05.11 - 06:16pm
Matthew 12:46-49; Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Mark 6:3
Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; 1Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1:1 (probable).
In the Galatians reference cited above, Paul identifies James as the Lords adelphos, (brother) not as His suggenes, (cousin or kinfolk). It is out of the question to think or believe that Paul didnt know the difference between a brother and a cousin. Moreover, the great historians of the patristic age Josephus of Judaism, and Eusebius of Christianity made reference to brothers of the Lord in their respective histories.
In his Antiquities XX, 200 , Josephus reported that, James, the brother ofJesus called the Christ had been putto death. And Eusebius, in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3, refers to James the Lords brother. Then, in Book 3, Chapter 20:1, this appears: Judethe Lords brother according to the flesh. His meaning could not be clearer. The Jude he refers to was a blood brother of Jesus, not a brother by faith.
But the doctrine of Marys lifetime virginity, the denial that she and Joseph enjoyed a normal marriage as commanded by God in 1 st Corinthians 7:4, 5, actually was obviated about 800 years before the births of Mary, Joseph or Jesus. In Psalm 69 is contained the following clearly Messianic prophecy: I am become a stranger unto my brethren , and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal ofthine house hath eaten me up ; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. ( Psa 69:8, 9)
How do we know that these verses are a Messianic prophecy? Because we read in the Gospel of John: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out ofthe temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (John 2:15-17)
And in Romans, we read : For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. (Romans 15:3)
The Roman Catholic doctrine statingthat Mary the mother of Jesus retained her virginity after Christs birth and for the rest of her life is just plain heresy. Worse, it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, author of the Scriptures, because it in effectaccuses the Word of God of lying to us. *
6j0 21.05.11 - 12:34pm
Endtimes thanks for all your time you put in this POWERFULL topic!!
I believe strongly GOD will do the rest, after who ever read this truth!
God use you in a VERY POWERFULL way!!
Keep It Up My Love!!
You Make Your Creater Very Happy! 
*
endtimes 21.05.11 - 01:40pm
Thank you my darling, glad you approve of this topic, love you 
*
6j0 3.06.11 - 06:44pm
YOU TO MY LOVE!! 
*
