The New Testament Scripture is based upon Catholic Tradition

Originally Posted by CQ

Never mind what Jesus said

That is precisely the Protestant attitude.

Jesus said:John 6:51

King James Version (KJV)
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

But you say:

Never mind what Jesus said

Jesus said:Mark 14:22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

But you say:

Never mind what Jesus said

No, you said that.

You said you produced the NT

That is correct. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

So it is clearly your opinion

Clearly, it is the Wisdom of God spoken through the Catholic Church:
Ephesians 3:10

King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Sacred Tradition comes from Jesus

The Apostles Taught all that Jesus commanded.  Thus, Jesus Christ taught about the Marian Doctrines in His Traditions which compose the Deposit of Faith upon which the New Testament is based.

Therefore, Scripture …

…St. Peter is the Pope or Vicar of Christ:
Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

…tells us that Mary is the Mother of God
Luke 1:43
King James Version (KJV)
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

...commands us to bless Mary:

Luke 1:48
King James Version (KJV)
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

…that Mary is Queen of Heaven
Revelation 12:1
King James Version (KJV)
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

… and that Christ is the image (i.e. icon) of God:
John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Therefore, since we have seen God, we can depict God in icons.  But if you are not Christian, if you do not believe that Jesus is God, you have not seen God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The New Testament is the product of Sacred Tradition

Anonymous said...
There is no proof for example that Mary was conceived without sin or kept from sin 

This is taught in the word, kecharitomene (Luke 1:28) and in the fact that God said He would put enmity between the Woman and Satan (Gen 3:15).

Kecharitomen means that one is "ever full of grace". Meaning that Mary was never touched by sin. This is because God put enmity between her and the Devil. Therefore, they never had anything in common.

or that there is indulgences. 

In fact, there are several explicit teachings. The only thing missing is the word, Indulgence. Listen to Jesus:

Luke 11:41

But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

In today's terminology, Jesus would have said, "Give to the poor and you will receive a plenary indulgence.

Here's another,

Mark 10:21

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

In today jargon, Jesus would have said, "Sell all you have and give to the poor and you will have many indulgences."

Where has your church officially defined what tradition is and what all the traditions of your church are?

In the New Testament.

Sincerely,

De Maria

All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Which traditions not recorded in the Scripture did the apostles consider inspired-inerrant?

Give a couple of specific examples that I can check.

All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament because Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament.

Do you not know that Jesus did not write anything down? Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Sacred Traditions. The Church then wrote down those Traditions in the book you now refer to as the New Testament.

The New Testament is the first official catechism of the Catholic Church. All Catholic Traditions are there, either implied or explicit.

But Sola Scriptura is absent and Sola Scriptura contradicts the New Testament. That is plain for all to see. Even you. Yet you continue to embrace that manmade tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God

Anonymous said...

So it appears you don't know of any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures. Would that be correct?

If I'm wrong, please show me an example of a tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant.

Confession. The Tradition that the Church ministers to and absolves repentant sinners:

John 20:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Now you. Show us why we should believe in and practice Sola Scriptura, when you have admitted it is not in Scripture and you stated that anything which is not in Scripture is not binding.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The New Testament is the first Catechism written by the Catholic Church

Originally Posted by Tim 

Officially interpreted? I have always been told it is 7.

What is the big deal about that? The New Testament is the interpretation of Catholic Tradition. Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament. Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter:


83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

In other words, Jesus did not write any Scripture. Not one word. He established the Catholic Church. Commanded her to pass down His Traditions. And the Church, by virtue of the authority vested in her by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; bind and loose) wrote down those Traditions in the New Testament.

The New Testament is the first official interpretation of God's Word written by the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

In regards to the traditions

Anonymous says,

De Maria,
In regards to the traditions mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we don’t know specifically what traditions Paul is referring to.

We do.  All you have to do is trace back to the Missionary journey to Thessalonia and you'll see:

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:  2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Therefore, he passed on Christian Doctrine.  AKA Catholic Doctrine.

We can though get a good idea from his letters what Paul taught. What we don’t see in his letters are things like Mary being sinless, indulgences, papal infallibility.

But those are part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And St. Paul was passing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Not some different version.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Nor are these doctrines taught else in the New Testament. I don’t want to be blind and i hope you don’t either.  This is why exegeting the Scripture is so important because it will tell us if our doctrines are sound or not. So far, we have seen in our discussions that some your doctrines are not.

On the contrary, they are taught throughout the New Testament.

What does James mean in James 2:24? Is James teaching that we must do good works to be saved without faith in Christ?

No one can be saved without faith. 

Is he teaching that when Christ died for our sins that our good works helped Christ and added to it?

No.  But Christ died to give us an example to follow:

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Scripture is clear that Jesus did not expect people to sit around claiming salvation by faith alone and who would neglect to do the work of God.

Heb 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 

How does your church officially exegete this verse?

Basically, that we are justified by faith AND works.  Not works alone without faith.  Not faith alone without works.

It is true that Ephesians 2:8-9 is teaching we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

That's not true.  You're just twisting Scripture in order to go against the Word of God.  The word "alone" is nowhere mentioned in that verse.  Let alone twice as you've inserted it.

And also, in order to get the entire idea being presented, you need to include verse 10.  Let's look at it.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
This is the Baptismal formula. It is in Baptism that we are saved by grace which is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, when we proclaim our faith in Christ.

and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

God gives us this grace. It is the first grace which God gives us because without faith we can’t please Him. And faith is a very special type of grace. It is a grace which must be exercised. Faith ALONE is dead (James 2:17).

Faith is a grace.
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;….

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Therefore we can’t boast that we made ourselves faithful nor that we saved ourselves.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We are ALL created in Christ when we are conceived. Christ has created all that is in creation:
John 1:3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

and we were all made to do good. We were all made to keep the Commandments.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

God gave this command from before time began. We were made for God. We were made to be righteous. This is why we are justified by DOING the faith OF Christ.

It is Christ alone who died for our sins and gained salvation for us.

True.  But He didn't die upon that Cross so that you would kick back, sip on your margarita and claim salvation without any effort on your part.  He frequently said:

Matthew 10:38

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 

It is by faith alone in this that we are saved.

Nope.  But it is by faith ALONE that we believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  And the Holy Eucharist is the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ.

Matthew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

From this, as verse 10 says, the good works are the result of salvation and not the cause of it. The good works we do can do nothing to affect our salvation that Christ has already gained and secured for us.

You've misunderstood v 10.  Most Protestants do so.  You should have taken the Scriptural warning seriously:

2 Peter 3:15-17 King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

It is true we are to obey God and work out our salvation (that Christ gained for us) in our lives. But our obedience does not keep us saved. Rather, it is the power of God that keeps us saved.

But the power of God only keeps the obedient saved.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Before you converted to the Roman Catholic church did you talk to your pastor or anyone who was knowledgeable on the Scripture?

Many.  Protestant and Catholic.  I also read many books.

Thanks for the questions.

Valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

PG said:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is ]perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
..............
CCC-85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” [47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
==============================
I'm simple; therefore, Scripture will give me wisdom and understanding.

Prov 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

DS responded:

Makes me think of this quote:

“I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” - Willam Tyndale
Luke 10:21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

DE MARIA SAID IN REPLY:

Its amazing then that Jesus did not write any Scripture.

In fact, what He did was establish a Church and command that Church to pass down His Traditions:

Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In fact, let's review what Jesus did. 
Jesus Christ did not write anything down. He established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Teachings. Another word for Teachings is Traditions.

That Church then wrote down the Traditions and called that the New Testament.

This is why valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. 

And invalid doctrines are found neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Take for instance, Sola Scriptura. You will find it neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Sacred Traditions taught by the Catholic Church also contradicts the Sacred Scriptures.


Sincerely,

De Maria

God is the authority over the Catholic Church.

De Maria March 30th, 2013 10:06 pm :

Hi Jonathan,

I’m responding to your comment #97.

I left out most of the discussion and only addressed the point of authority because the rest seemed to be about ad hominems. I didn’t see any point in entering that part of the discussion. Perhaps you and I can come to a better understanding.

You said on
March 9th, 2013 3:27 am 

I must admit, I on’t think I could have possibly asked for a better response to my posts….. We’re talking about what is the ultimate standard, and as such, there can only possibly be circular reasoning on the issue! I will freely admit that I start with God and his word as my foundation, and I end with God and his word as my foundation. Completely circular, and happily accepted as such.

I’ll have to challenge you on two points you made there.

1. That appealing to an ultimate standard must be by way of circular reasoning.

There is more than one way to appeal to an ultimate authority.

a. The Protestant methodology is circular. It is me and my Bible. If a Protestant is asked a question, the answer is invariably, “The Bible tells me so.”

b. Whereas Catholic methodology is many and varied. It can be circular, inductive or deductive, depending upon the situation.

i. Circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong. It is simply not persuasive when it is the only type of reasoning employed.
ii. Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific to the general.
iii. While deductive reasoning is reasoning from the general to the specific.

The Catholic methodology is more robust and persuasive than the Protestant methodology because we don’t rely upon Scripture alone. But upon Sacred Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.

So, to contrast the Catholic situation with the Protestant. A Protestant will say, “the Bible tells me so.” Whereas a Catholic will say, “The Bible tells me so and that is confirmed in Sacred Tradition and in the Teaching of the Church (Magisterium). In addition, the Catholic methodology also admits historical and archaeological evidence. In fact, all branches of science are admissible in the Catholic court.

2. That you begin with God and his word as your foundation, and end with God and his word as your foundation.

In practice, you don’t. You begin with your own understanding and end with your own understanding as your foundation. That is why Protestants accuse Catholics of checking their brain at the door of the Catholic Church.

Let’s compare the Protestant and Catholic methodology again.

Say two Christians have a dispute upon what it says in Scripture. If they are Protestant, they debate. If neither is persuaded by the other, they simply go their way.

If two Catholics dispute about Scripture, they go to the Church for an authoritative decision. The Church tells them which is right and which is wrong. This is confirmed historically. See the debates between St. Athanasius vs Arius; and St. Augustine vs the Pelagians.

You also said:

As I mentioned last time, the Roman Catholic Church states that it’s ultimate authority is God. But in actuality, it is not God, but the Roman Catholic Church itself. So I’m starting to see that this is what I need to show my Roman Catholic friend – the Roman Catholic Church makes a subtle authority swap and slips itself into the place of God as the ultimate authority. Hopefully, he’ll be able to see it, and hopefully some of your comments here will help him. They really are quite good at exposing the ultimacy of the Roman Catholic Church in its own beliefs.

I’ll have to dispute that one also.

The authority over the Catholic Church is God. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ is God. And it is Jesus Christ who empowered the Catholic Church to be the authority over His flock.

This is based upon the principle established by Jesus Christ:
Luke 10:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Jesus Christ was sent by the Father:
John 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me,…

And He sent the Church:
… even so send I you.

Again, Jesus was sent by the Father:
Matthew 28:18-20
King James Version (KJV)
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

And He sent the Church.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And that Church is the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God.

Anti-Catholic says:
I have yet to meet a RC that knows the Bible well.

Without meaning any disrespect. I don’t know any Protestant who understands the Bible, not even your best scholars. True, you guys repeat the words well enough. But you don’t know the true meaning of the words. And that’s the ones you know.

For the most part, you go by the extra-biblical traditions taught you by your church. I’ll give you an example:

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Most Protestants don’t even know that verse is in Scripture. Those who have read, disregard it. Here’s the Protestant doctrine, “I won’t check my brain at the door! I’m a free thinker.”

And here’s the kicker. Most Catholics know the Word of God better than most Protestants.  A devout Catholic, on the street, understands the Word of God better than Billy Graham or any other of your high and mighty televangelists or preachers.  You see, the Word of God does not come in the Bible alone.  It is passed down in the Sacred Traditions of Jesus Christ, which you have abandoned.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Bible is Church Teaching

Anti-Catholic asks:Are you saying that church teaching determines the meaning of a verse-passage and not the Bible?  In other words, its not what the original intent of the author of a book of the Scripture that guides what the Scripture means but rather church teachings.

That’s a false dichotomy. The Bible is Church teaching. The Catholic Church inherited the Old Testament and wrote the New.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus Christ did not write a word of Scripture? Because He wanted us to flock to His Church to get His understanding of the Word. Jesus Christ taught the Church His understanding of the Old Testament. This is the understanding which the Church now passes down to us (Luke 24:32).

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Evangelicals do not agree with Catholic Teaching

Quote: 

Your explanations betray your ignorance of the different views that evangelicals have on eternal security.

I don't concern myself with the errors of men but only with the eternal truth of the Word of God.

Quote:
Not all evangelicals believe in what you are claiming they believe.

Enough of them do that I can make a valid point against their theology.

Quote:
Therefore, when I and other posters articulate a very evangelical understanding of salvation, faith, and works, you are confused because it looks very similar to Catholic teaching, and yet it contradicts what you've come to think the "evangelical" position is.

It is you who made it seem as though Evangelicals unanimously believed what you are teaching. But you have now admitted that you follow a more Catholic position on this matter than the average Evangelical. Although your position, is itself, an error.

Quote:

I find that the Catholics on this forum tend to believe that all evangelicals believe in Once Saved Always Saved, and that is a universally held doctrine among evangelical churches.

It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do. Whenever the odd Evangelical appears who holds a slightly different variant of that belief, we can handle those argumens, case by case. Suffice to say, that if the variant does not agree with the Catholic Teaching, it is still in contradiction of the Word of God in Scripture, as well.

Quote:
It is not, and many, many evangelicals find it an abhorrent theology.

That is good to hear. Now if they would only take the next step and embrace the Catholic Church, it would be wonderful!

Good talking to you,

Sincerely,


De Maria

Rebutting Anti-Catholic objections to Marian Doctrine

Humble Virgin

Anti-Catholic said:
There are serious problems with Mary being an ever-virgin. Here is why:1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin. 

True. But that causes problems for you, not for us.

1. Your claim proves too much since none of the authors of Scripture claim that Jesus was a perpetual virgin either. Since it is not denied in Scripture, does that mean it is affirmed that Jesus is not a perpetual virgin?

2. I assume that you believe in Scripture alone. And since Scripture does not say that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, you must be relying upon a non-biblcial source to claim that she was not.

2) The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.

If it is read without the benefit of the Traditions and Doctrines of Jesus Christ which underly the whole of the New Testament. If, however, you understand the Traditions and Doctrines of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament, then you will realize that it is impossible that Mary not be a perpetual virgin.

Anti-Catholic said:3) The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching. 

And yet St. Paul teaches:
1 Corinthians 7:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Could it be that St. Joseph was aware of this teaching?

4) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19

a. Not so. The Bible was not written for teachers of grammar but for the common people. And common usage is evident throughout.

b. Even today, in certain societies, cousins are referred to as brothers.

c. In the New Testament, the brethren of Jesus Christ are identified multiple times as His Apostles.

d. If we study the Scriptures, we find that 3 of the 4 brethren identified in Matt 13:55-56 are indeed, Apostles. Let me show you:

Matthew 13:55-56
King James Version (KJV)
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So, who are these brethren? First let us correlate the lists of the Apostles in the various Gospels:
Matthew 10:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:
16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Luke 6:13-16
King James Version (KJV)
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

St. John does not provide a list. Here we go:

They all begin with Simon Peter, showing his primacy.
They all mention Andrew, his brother, although not in the same order.
They all mention James, the son of Zebedee.
They all mention John, the brother of James.
They all mention Philip.
They all mention Bartholomew.
They all mention Thomas.
They all mention Matthew.

Now, pay close attention to the next three:

ONE: They all mention James the son of Alphaeus. Some call him James the less.

TWO: Matthew's Labbaeus Thaddeus is Mark's Thaddeus which corresponds to Luke's Judas the brother of James. Did you catch that? Judas the brother of James. Keep that in mind.

THREE: Next, Matt's and Mark's Simon the Canaanite corresponds to Luke's Simon Zelotes.

We can disregard the final Apostle, the traitor Iscariot.

What were the names of those brethren again? James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Is it a coincidence then that James, Judas the brother of James and Simon are always listed together in the lists of Apostles?

There is no question in my mind, that these three Apostles are the brethren mentioned in Matt 13:55-56. But lets go to the next point.


Furthermore:
e. If we study further, we will also see that these same 3 brethren are identified as the children of the other Mary. There is another Mary who is the "sister" of the Virgin Mary. Let us correlate some Scriptures:

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

This Mary is always mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.

Matthew 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Note that she is the mother of James:
Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

I'm assuming that Joanna is Salome, who is also frequently mentioned with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary:
Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Now, this Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. Therefore she is also the mother of Judas the brother of James and of Simon:

Matthew 13:55
King James Version (KJV)
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

We know from Tradition that the Virgin Mary is an only child. Therefore her "sister", the OTHER Mary, is her "cousin."

The children of this other Mary, James, Joses, Simon, Judas and Salome are kindred of Jesus. But not brothers of the womb.

Perhaps of further interest is this. One of the early Church Fathers reveals that Alphaeus (aka Cleophas) is St. Joseph's brother. Now, the Jews were expected to marry their cousins. Remember how Abraham sent his servant to his brother to find a wife for Isaac?

This leads to another interesting situation. James the greater and John, the sons of Zebedee are related to Jesus Christ from both sides of His earthly family. Salome, the other Mary's daughter is the wife of Alphaeus, St. Joseph's brother. She is the mother of Zebedee's children, James and John.

5) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood. 

They are kin, but not siblings.

6) There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children. 

There is no hint in Scripture that Mary ever committed sin nor that she had other children. Yet, you believe these things.

7) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19. 

Meaning "cousin" or "kin". But not "brother of womb."

This same James is the brother of Jude. But Jude introduces himself as:
Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

NOT the "brother of Jesus Christ and James.

8) There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.

But we can prove from the Scriptures that those whom you claim are His blood brothers are actually His cousins.

9) Psalm 69 which is a messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. Verse 8—“ I have become estranged from my brothersAnd an alien to my mother’s sons.”

Ahhhh, how you twist the Scriptures to your convenience. That is a reference to the Nation of Israel. My mother's sons are my fellow Israelites. The mother being Israel:
Deuteronomy 17:15
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

10) Other references to Jesus’ brothers by Mary included: John 2:12, 

That is a reference to the Apostles.

John 7:3; 

You didn't read John 6?

The disciples had just abandoned Jesus:
John 6:66

The only ones left were the Twelve, His brethren. And they were concerned both for His safety and for the fact that the Church had literally been disbanded before it began. Therefore they suggested.

John 7:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

Acts 1:14

That is a reference to His Apostles or to His Kin or to both. But again, it is proven from Scripture that those whom you claim are Mary's children are the children of another woman also named Mary.

11) Protestant scholar D. A. Carson points out, if "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name.

A. That's funny. Because it is not uncommon in many households, even today, for EVERY woman to be named Mary.

B. The word "sister" is also a reference to "cousins". We know by Tradition that Mary was an only child.

All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of "brothers" in this pericope, despite McHugh's best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT... — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).

Its a shame that the best Bible Scholars that Protestantism can produce have not bothered to do some actual research in the Bible. If they had, they would have found that the other Mary is the mother of the four individuals whom they claim are the "brothers" of Christ.

It is, indeed, pitiful.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Fielding an onslaught of anti-Catholic objections

And many other such traditions, they held.

Anti-Catholic says: 

Eating blood is forbidden as a universal concept - before the law (Gen9:4) under the law (Lev 17:14) and in the NEW TESTAMENT:
"...abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Acts 15:20"...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood..."Acts 15:29

Read in context, those two prohibitions have to do with the eating of anything which was killed and offered in a pagan ritual. It is written in the typically redundant manner of a Hebrew. Abstaining from the pollution of idols includes the abstaining from fornication which frequently accompanied the pagan rituals and from eating strangled and dismembered in the same rituals.

The people making these prohibitions are the same ones who eat the bread which is the body of Christ and drink the wine which is the blood of Christ: 1 Corinthians 10:16

You blaspheme Jesus Christ - he NEVER violated the law, in spirit or letter. 1 Pt 2:22; Hebrews 7:26; John 8:45.

Apparently, the Jews thought that He did. That is why they judged Him guilty of sacrilege and had Him killed. Let us see what the Scripture says on that matter:

Deuteronomy 13:1-6
1 If there arise among you a prophet,.... Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; ....5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; ....

The Jews did not believe that Jesus was God. Therefore they said to Him:
Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Washing hands before you eat is not a law, nor taking grain by hand on the sabbath. 

Taking grain by hand on the Sabbath was against the Mosaic law as is clearly evidence in the attempted gathering of the manna on the Sabbath: Ex 16:26-30

Hung on a tree was not prohibited - the body was simply to be taken down and buried that day: Dt 21:23 (see, John 19:31 ff). 

You've missed the point.

Deuteronomy 21:23...(for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) 

Anyone who is hanged is accursed of God. Therefore, according to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, such as a Protestant would make, Jesus is accursed of God.

Unsaved Romanists

With the Apostle I say God is my Judge: 1 Cor 4:2-4

Whether I am saved or not is for God to judge. Not you. And you, no matter how often you call yourself saved, will also stand before the judgement seat: Rom 14:10

You think you can save yourself by claiming salvation, but you are simply usurping God's right to judge all mankind. You can have your judgement. I will await God's.

read John 6 and think of a priest mumbling over a cup of red alcohol. A saved man reads John 6 and sees Christ's blood shed on the cross at Calvary. 

That is where you are wrong. A Catholic reads John 6 and understands how Christ said He would save us with His Blood. Whereas it is still a mystery how Protestants claim to be washed in the Blood of Christ when they don't believe that Christ gives them that Blood in the Eucharist.

Apparently, they go out and slaughter Christ again in order to so bathe.

Eternal life is obtained spiritually by believing in Christ,

Believing in Christ does not mean denying His words.

not by physically eating and drinking: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63.

Scripture is spiritually discerned: 1 Cor 2:14

Have you not heard of the THE flesh?

Romans 7:25...but with the flesh the law of sin.

But does Christ say to eat THE flesh or HIS flesh?

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

There's a big difference between HIS flesh and THE flesh:
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink" Rom 14:17. 

But in order to enter the Kingdom of God you had better eat of the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood:

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Christ died once and sat down at God's right hand: "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Heb 10:12-13. 

Amen! But did you forget that He remains the Lamb slain in eternity?
Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

So Jesus doesn't leave God's right hand until the second advent (Rev. 19:11).

1. It says He sat down. It doesn't say He never stands back up again. Nor does it say that He doesn't come back again and frequently.

2. However, everything is possible for God, therefore, He can be in millions of places at the same time.

Deny it. Go ahead, deny that God can be in many places at once.

Since Christ's sacrifice is finished ("he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30). 

Again, you say this because you don't understand the Scriptures. He said that His portion of the sacrifice was finished. We still have our part.

1. Christ is our Passover:
1 Corinthians 5:7

2. The Passover must be eaten:
Exodus 12:8-12

So what is the significance of the Roman Catholic's eucharistic sacrifice:"the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." 1 Cor 10:20.

That describes pagan sacrifice. We offer the pure oblation which God commands: Malachi 1:11

"...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb 6:6. 

This is a reference to those who have received all the Sacraments of God and then turned away from Christ. Note that they crucify Him again. Because He died for their sins and then they embrace those same sins again.

You don't take Christ literally anyhow - you say he was making a metaphor that his blood just stands for wafers and "unbloody" wine slurped by Roman Catholic priests. 

I have no idea what you're talking about. We believe Christ. We believe everything He says. It is only by faith that one can receive these spiritual truths.

The literal meaning is that Christ literally poured out his blood on the cross for the sins of mankind. That is the literal meaning. And it wasn't painless little ceremony at high noon on a lace covered table. It entailed monumental shame and agony and was endured by Christ just once, and it now over and done with:"for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2. 

Yes, it was painful and a tremendous sacrifice. And Christ commanded that you do this painless little ceremony in remembrance of His painful sacrifice. But you reject and disobey His Command. Here is what the Word of God says about those who refuse to remember Christ's sacrifice:
Hebrews 10:25-31
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

But Catholics say, "you didn't die quite enough, more shame, more agony please. Don't sit down in heaven, come down to our altars and suffer again. We will shame again as a perpetual victim. We want to sacrifice you anew and drink your blood." What a blasphemous mockery! 

It is Protestants who blaspheme and make a mockery out of Christ's sacrifice by refusing to remember what He did for us. Yes, its a painless little ritual which takes less than an hour. BUT YOU REFUSE TO DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST as He commanded. Remember the Scripture:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Therefore obey.

Shame on you cannibalistic, bible-rejecting, vampires

Shame on you bible rejecting murderers who sacrifice Christ again and tread upon the sacrifice which He shed His blood for you. It is you who reject the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition. It is you.

You mock what Jesus Christ really did in 33 AD to elevate the importance and idolatry of your own weekly ceremony in sacrifice to devils. 

No, we remember His Sacrifice. Whereas, you belittle it and tread upon it.

"Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips." Ps. 16:4.

This is speaking of the Old Testament. Whereas in the New, Jesus says:
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

And you refuse.

Sincerely,

De Maria