Mary- other children


#1

How exactly can I convince a non Catholic that Mary was a virgen her whole life? My friend insists Mary couldn’t have possibly lived her whole life as a virgen, and be married to Joseph.

My friend also insists that Mary had other children. He is convinced of this because of the passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Where are the passages that the word in hebrew is the same for brothers and cousins? And which passages does Jesus refer to all human kind as His brothers and sisters?


#2

[quote=glow8worm]How exactly can I convince a non Catholic that Mary was a virgen her whole life? My friend insists Mary couldn’t have possibly lived her whole life as a virgen, and be married to Joseph.

My friend also insists that Mary had other children. He is convinced of this because of the passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Where are the passages that the word in hebrew is the same for brothers and cousins? And which passages does Jesus refer to all human kind as His brothers and sisters?
[/quote]

Can a marriage be a marriage without having a sexual relationship? Wouldnt this be grounds for an annulment. :confused: God Bless


#3

The Church teaches Mary was a virgen her whole life.


#4

This is not a new charge and is easily refuted. Go to catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

(If that doesn’t work, go to catholic.com, and on the left click on “Mary and the Saints” from there, go to “Brethren of the Lord”.)

Another thing to remind your friends is that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. If you look at how the Ark of the Old Covenant was regarded, it becomes very apparent that it was “consecrated” to God’s service: no one hauled grain in the old Ark when it was handy, or used it for any other purpose. So with Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

I would also point out that if Jesus had brothers, then he would not have given his mother’s care over to John at the foot of the cross.


#5

[quote=glow8worm]How exactly can I convince a non Catholic that Mary was a virgen her whole life? My friend insists Mary couldn’t have possibly lived her whole life as a virgen, and be married to Joseph.

My friend also insists that Mary had other children. He is convinced of this because of the passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Where are the passages that the word in hebrew is the same for brothers and cousins? And which passages does Jesus refer to all human kind as His brothers and sisters?
[/quote]

You will only get frustrated tying to convince him. Instead, just explain it to him this way, and let him think about it.

I think there are 4 people in the New Testament who are called “brethren of the lord”. With regard to two of them - James and Joseph - it can be shown they are not the children of Jesus mother, but of another Mary, the wife of Celophas, who is said to be the Blessed Virgin Mary’s “sister” (actually her cousin).

In Matthew 13, we read: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude” (Mt 13).

Here we are told that James and Joseph are his “brethren”. Later, we are told that James and Joseph are the children of another Mary who is at the foot of the cross.

“And there were there many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:55-56).

In John 19, we are told who this other Mary is: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen” (John 19:35).

By reading these three passages together, we can see that at least two of the “brethren” of Jesus, are actually his cousins, and not the children of His mother.

After showing that these two “brethren” are actually Jesus’ cousins, I would point out that the Bible often calls cousins, or relatives, “brothers”. For example, in Genesis 14:4, Lot is said to be Abraham’s “brother”, but in Gensis 1126-28, we are told that Lot is actually his nephew. I think there is another place in Genesis 11 to 15, where it also says Lot was his “brother”.

After showing that the Bible does sometimes refer to relatives as brethren; and after showing that at least two of the “brethren” of the Lord are His cousins, I would ask it they would agree that it is possible that the other two are also his cousins. If they are honest they will acknowledge that it is possible. Then point out that the Bible never says that any of these “brethren” are the children of Mary (Jesus’ mother).

Something else to mention is that Jesus gave Mary to John, when He was dying upon the cross - “woman behold thy son; son behold thy mother: and from that hour the disciple took her to his own” (John 19).

If Mary would have had other children, according to Jewish law it would have been their responsibility to take care of her. Since she had no other children, Our Lord gave her to St. John to be cared for.

There was an apocryphal writing from the 2nd century which said some of the “brethren” of Jesus were children of Joseph from a previous marriage, but this has never been held by the Church.

St. Isidore: “ But some suspect the brethren of the Lord to be sons of another wife, following the idle fancies of apocryphal writers, who have coined a certain woman called Esca. But we understand by the brethren of the Lord, not the sons Joseph, but cousins of the Savior, sons of a sister of Mary, aunt of Our Lord, who is said to be the mother of James the Less, and Joseph, and Jude, whom in another place of the Gospel we find called the brethren of the Lord. And that cousins are called brethren, appears from every part of Scripture.”

If you do a google search for “brethren of the Lord”, you will probably find a lot of good information.


#6

First I would steer him towards Old Testament verses concerning the Ark of the Covenant.
Paricularly how CAREFUL the jews had to be when they were around it. They were scared of it! One man died because he touched it while preventing it from falling - but he was not allowed to touch it!
It was so powerful because the presence of God overshadowed the Ark.

Just like Yahweh overshadowed Mary and conceived the second person of the Holy Trinity.
Now imagine you are Joseph - an honorable jewish man.
He learns that his virgin wife has conceived the messiah through the Holy Presence of Yahweh!!

No - I have no trouble at all thinking Joseph would refrain from sex with the mother of the messiah.


#7

[quote=glow8worm]How exactly can I convince a non Catholic that Mary was a virgen her whole life? My friend insists Mary couldn’t have possibly lived her whole life as a virgen, and be married to Joseph.

My friend also insists that Mary had other children. He is convinced of this because of the passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Where are the passages that the word in hebrew is the same for brothers and cousins? And which passages does Jesus refer to all human kind as His brothers and sisters?
[/quote]

The best way to do this I think is to start with the arguements of St. Jerome defending the virginity of the Blessed Virgin. You can read it at this link.

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-08.htm#P5991_1770937

I would then follow it up by examining Luke 1 where Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear a son. It appears that Mary had made a vow of virginity previously. Augustine mentions this in one of his writings. This is what he said.

  1. It is written in the Gospel, of the mother and brethren of Christ, that is, His kindred after the flesh, that, when word had been brought to Him, and they were standing without, because they could not come to Him by reason of the crowd, He made answer, “Who is My mother ? or who are My brethren ? and stretching forth His Hand over His disciples, He saith, These are My brethren: and whosoever shall have done the will of My Father, that man is to Me brother, and mother, and sister.”(1) What else teaching us, than to prefer to kindred after the flesh, our descent after the Spirit: and that men are not blessed for this reason, that they are united by nearness of flesh unto just and holy men, but that, by obeying and following, they cleave unto their doctrine and conduct. Therefore Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. For to a certain one who said, “Blessed is the womb, which bare Thee,”(2) He Himself made answer, “Yea, rather, blessed are they who hear the Word of God, and keep it.” Lastly, to His brethren, that is, His kindred after the flesh, who believed not in Him, what profit was there in that being of kin ? Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh.
  2. Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; “How,” saith she, " shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"(3) Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, “How shall this take place?” and had not added, “seeing I know not a man,” certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free. ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-03/npnf1-03-33.htm#P3869_1838650

#8

[quote=SPOKENWORD]Can a marriage be a marriage without having a sexual relationship? Wouldnt this be grounds for an annulment. :confused: God Bless
[/quote]

Would you want an annulment from the Mother of the second person of the Holy Trinity?Also Jesus says the Church is His Bride and I am sure you won’t even go there.The problem is spoken you want to reduce the gifts and Mystery’s of God to a human level.You can’t do it.Humility is neccesary to accept these things.God Bless and come home:crying:


#9

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]Would you want an annulment from the Mother of the second person of the Holy Trinity?Also Jesus says the Church is His Bride and I am sure you won’t even go there.The problem is spoken you want to reduce the gifts and Mystery’s of God to a human level.You can’t do it.Humility is neccesary to accept these things.God Bless and come home:crying:
[/quote]

Hi Lisa, I was thinking along the lines of applying it to our lives. :confused: God Bless


#10

[quote=SPOKENWORD]Hi Lisa, I was thinking along the lines of applying it to our lives. :confused: God Bless
[/quote]

I allways like to read your posts spoken, glad to see you’re here.

Blessed Mary was special. Of all the women of all time God chose Her to be the Mother of His Son. He did not pick my mother, your mother or any of our daughters either.

It is obvious that some people CAN HAVE special relationships with each other and with God. Just because we are treated one way does not mean God is limited in how He may work with others. Do not tie Gods hands behind his back or limit Him as you have done.

Read 1 Cor 12-13, are we all given the same gifts? Are some gifts greater or more vital or important then others? Because one person has more important gift does that make the person more important to God or just the gift? (Did Luther try to take out 1 Cor too along with all those other books he deleted out of Sacred Scripture?:hmmm: )

So, it is obvious that God can treat us seperately. We are not allways treated the same. We are not all judged as a group so I will not have to pay for the sins of men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hitler, Dalmer, Manson, etc…

How can we apply the conditions of our lifes today with those of Blessed Mary? We live in luxery here in the US with some security. We do not have kings hunting down our first born or soldiers demanding services of us or people being crucified on the hills of our cities. (OK, our nation murders more babies each year then Hitler’s Germany killed Jews and Catholics each year.)

Blessed Mary was special because she was hand picked by God. She may be no different then you or I in that she was born a human but she is different in that she is the mother of God (Jesus is God isn’t he?).

In my old Baptist church I braught up the subject where we are told in Sacred Scripture that celibacy is a special gift and that our clergy are encouraged to use this gift. What was the Baptist response? Here it is, “Paul wrote that so we don’t have to follow it. We only have to follow what Jesus told us.”:whacky: So this means they can pick and choose what they want to believe. Come to think of it, they don’t have to follow anything Paul wrote. Uhm, thy don’t even have to follow anything in Scripture since who knows if the opinions written into it were really from Jesus or just the Scribe writting it? What a bogus double standard!:eek: They would never take St. John 6:53-56 literally. WHOA, the Baptists take the Bible figuratively and the Catholics take it literally? Who could have known?

I’ll follow what’s in Scripture anyday. So, celibacy does have a place in or out of marriage and with our clergy. God asked a man to kill his son but he never asked me or you to? So God does not treat us all the same. We have different uses to God and different gifts from God.

See the thread I started on the siblings of Jesus for more information too:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=26051

Praise God and thank the Blessed ever virgin Mary for her role in our lifes. Without her special gifts we might still be waiting for our Messiah. Who better to use as an example in our everyday lives as a role model then Blessed Mary? Randy Moss? Shaq? Dan Rather? King James (the homosexual king responsible for the KJV bible)? Bill Clinton? Who better then to give an entire sermon on during mother’s day then Blessed Mary? A shame many protestant preachers avoid her like the plague.

Oh well, back to planning my Mary Garden…someday it’ll be finished.

God bless,


#11

On top of all these other reasons so excellently stated, it will be significant to some Protestents that Martin Luther went to his grave convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary (not to mention her being immaculate). He wrote that the proper understanding of the word for “brethren” included cousins. The most common Catholic understanding.

Not that we think they’d accept Luther as necessarily inspired–simply a nudge to say, "How can you say, It’s so obvious! when in fact Luther…

Further, a position asserting that the inspired writers’ use of “brothers” MUST be rendered as WE use it, fails for Protestents as well as Catholics. All Christians acknowledge that no one else could have had the same “biological” father as Jesus. The best they’d be would be half-brothers.

John


#12

[quote=glow8worm]How exactly can I convince a non Catholic that Mary was a virgen her whole life? My friend insists Mary couldn’t have possibly lived her whole life as a virgen, and be married to Joseph.

My friend also insists that Mary had other children. He is convinced of this because of the passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Where are the passages that the word in hebrew is the same for brothers and cousins? And which passages does Jesus refer to all human kind as His brothers and sisters?
[/quote]

Dear friend,

Throughout the gospels, we see multiple references to Jesus’ “brothers”. One even mentions his “sisters.” These texts, taken in their natural reading, imply that Mary was the mother of an ordinary Jewish family. The RCC insists that this natural reading is incorrect. They correctly state that Hebrew does not have separate terms for “brother” and “cousin.” Therefore, the brothers are really cousins, and Mary was a virgin forever. Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the gospels were all written in Greek and Greek does have separate terms for “brother” (adephos) (which literally means, the sharing of the womb) “sister” (adelphe) and “cousin” (anepsios). In order for the RCC interpretation to hold, it must deny the inspiration of the gospel writers. No other possibility exists. Of course, to deny inspiration would be to deny the canonicity of the gospels, and without them, Mary essentially disappears.

:blessyou:


#13

[quote=Malachi4U]I allways like to read your posts spoken, glad to see you’re here.

Read 1 Cor 12-13, are we all given the same gifts? Are some gifts greater or more vital or important then others? Because one person has more important gift does that make the person more important to God or just the gift? (Did Luther try to take out 1 Cor too along with all those other books he deleted out of Sacred Scripture?:hmmm: )

Luther didn’t take any books out of Scripture!
“The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

Blessed Mary was special because she was hand picked by God. She may be no different then you or I in that she was born a human but she is different in that she is the mother of God (Jesus is God isn’t he?)

The phrase “Mother of God” originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: “Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood.” The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title “Mother of God” was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.

Con’t
[/quote]


#14

From previous post:

What a bogus double standard!:eek: They would never take St. John 6:53-56 literally. WHOA, the Baptists take the Bible figuratively and the Catholics take it literally? Who could have known?

If we read the entire sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, we not only get the context, but also some startling insights into what Jesus meant when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. John chapter 6, begins with the account of Jesus feeding five thousand, followed by the account of Jesus walking on water. Starting in verse 22, we find that on the following day, people were seeking Jesus for the wrong reasons, which we understand from Jesus’ words in verses 26 and 27: “you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for food which perishes, but for food which endures to everlasting life.”

These verses begin to frame the context of the verses that follow, specifically, that Jesus emphasized the need for them to seek eternal life. Jesus goes on to explain to them how to obtain eternal life, and in verse 28, when the people ask Jesus “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus replies (verse 29) “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Here Jesus specifies that there is only one work that pleases God, namely, belief in Jesus. Jesus re-emphasizes this in verse 35 “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” Notice the imperative is to “come to Me” and “believe in Me.” Jesus repeats the thrust of His message in verse 40 where He states - “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus could not be more clear - by coming to Him and trusting in Him we will receive eternal life. At this point in the chapter, the Jews complained about Him because He said: “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” (verse 41). Jesus responds to their murmuring in verses 42 through 58, where he states that He is indeed the “living bread” and that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to obtain eternal life. However, let’s remember the context of this statement. First, Jesus contrasts Himself with the manna that rained down on their fathers and sustained them for their journey, but their fathers are now dead. While Jesus offers Himself as the living bread, which, if they eat, will cause them to live forever.

Jesus is not the perishable manna that their descendants ate in the wilderness, He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever. This contrast strengthens His main message, which is recorded in verse 47 where Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Notice, Jesus said that as soon as we believe in Him we have, present tense, eternal life. It is not something we aim at or hope we might attain in the future, but rather, something we receive immediately upon believing. When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine. Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively. If He was speaking literally, then He would be directly contradicting God the Father: “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Genesis 9:4). Therefore, because Jesus Himself said,** “the Scripture cannot be broken.” **(John 10:35), He must be speaking metaphorically. And that is exactly how He explains His own words in the subsequent verses.

Con’t


#15

[quote=SPOKENWORD]Can a marriage be a marriage without having a sexual relationship? Wouldnt this be grounds for an annulment. :confused: God Bless
[/quote]

It might be grounds in the civil courts but no it would not be grounds for an annulment if the couple were brought together through a matchmaker and there already existed a vow of virginity and the potential husband did not object to it.

Maggie


#16

Con’t from previous post.

After this, in verse 60, we find that many of His disciples said - “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” Jesus was aware of their complaints and He responded in verses 61 through 64 saying - “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? **It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. **But there are some of you who do not believe.” Wait a minute, the flesh profits nothing! I thought Jesus said we must eat His flesh? Yet, if the flesh profits nothing, Jesus must be speaking in spiritual terms. And that is exactly what He says - “The words that I speak to you are spirit.”

Jesus uses the exact same Greek word for flesh (“sarx”) as He did in the preceding verses. Therefore we must conclude that eating His literal flesh profits nothing! If the Lord Himself sets the context of the dialogue, we would do well to hear Him. He said that the words that He speaks are spirit and that the flesh profits nothing.

If that isn’t clear enough, Peter’s words allow no room for doubt. Immediately following the dialogue with the Jews, in which some disciples went away, Jesus said to the twelve apostles - “Do you also want to go away?” (verse 67). Peter’s response is profound. His reply to Jesus is recorded in verse 68 - “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Amazing! Peter did not say we have come to believe that we must eat Your flesh to live. He said that we know You are the Christ, and we have come to believe in You as the Christ.

This is the confession of faith that leads to eternal life, not eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood. It also agrees with the totality of Scripture. Here is a brief sampling:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).

What must I do to be saved?…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (Acts 16: 30, 31).

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life (John 3:36).

I hope this is helpful!

:love:


#17

[quote=John1717]Con’t from previous post.

After this, in verse 60, we find that many of His disciples said - “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” Jesus was aware of their complaints and He responded in verses 61 through 64 saying - “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? **It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. **But there are some of you who do not believe.” Wait a minute, the flesh profits nothing! I thought Jesus said we must eat His flesh? Yet, if the flesh profits nothing, Jesus must be speaking in spiritual terms. And that is exactly what He says - “The words that I speak to you are spirit.”

Jesus uses the exact same Greek word for flesh (“sarx”) as He did in the preceding verses. Therefore we must conclude that eating His literal flesh profits nothing! If the Lord Himself sets the context of the dialogue, we would do well to hear Him. He said that the words that He speaks are spirit and that the flesh profits nothing.

If that isn’t clear enough, Peter’s words allow no room for doubt. Immediately following the dialogue with the Jews, in which some disciples went away, Jesus said to the twelve apostles - “Do you also want to go away?” (verse 67). Peter’s response is profound. His reply to Jesus is recorded in verse 68 - “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Amazing! Peter did not say we have come to believe that we must eat Your flesh to live. He said that we know You are the Christ, and we have come to believe in You as the Christ.

This is the confession of faith that leads to eternal life, not eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood. It also agrees with the totality of Scripture. Here is a brief sampling:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).

What must I do to be saved?…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (Acts 16: 30, 31).

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life (John 3:36).

I hope this is helpful!

:love:
[/quote]

There is a lot of twisting of the Scripture going on here. Who is that writer who is teaching that you have eternal life now? This is the second time I have heard someone making this vital error.

Maggie


#18

Help me. I was wondering if this interpreting of Scripture is infallible. Maybe I’d be more convinced if someone could quote me two or three of the early Fathers who didn’t believe the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, just as a counterbalance against the myriad who did.

Really, just any evidence from anywhere in the, oh, first fourteen centuries.


#19

[quote=john ennis]Help me. I was wondering if this interpreting of Scripture is infallible. Maybe I’d be more convinced if someone could quote me two or three of the early Fathers who didn’t believe the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, just as a counterbalance against the myriad who did.

Really, just any evidence from anywhere in the, oh, first fourteen centuries.
[/quote]

Well I do not think that the Magisterium will be replaced too soon after reading through all the twists and the turns in that explanation. It was just more of the same, always supposedly the work of the poster, never giving away the real source. Yet, there is a remarkable similarity amongst those Baptists who believe this idea that all they have to do is accept the Lord as Saviour and bingo they have eternal life now.

Maggie


#20

[quote=MaggieOH]There is a lot of twisting of the Scripture going on here. Who is that writer who is teaching that you have eternal life now? This is the second time I have heard someone making this vital error.

Maggie
[/quote]

I agree, I have seen alot of twisting in posts before,but this:nope: I am soooo glad and blessed to be Catholic.God Bless


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.