Welcome to ESCAPED CATHOLICS SAVED BY GRACE

CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES NO APOLOGETICS

Roman Catholic apologists are ever at work trying to come up with believable explanations for the various unscriptural dogmas "patched" into their religion over many centuries. Christians who are born again by God's amazing grace have no such problem. All that we believe can be found in the holy Bible.

We believe we are saved exclusively by God's grace and not by any of our own works. If that belief is contested, we simply point to Ephesians 2:8,9, Titus 3:5, Romans 11:6, 2 Cor 5:21, etc. We believe that our Lord's sacrifice on Calvary was sufficient, and that Catholicism's oft repeated "unbloody sacrifice of the Mass" is blasphemy. If our belief is contested, we simply point to Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:28 10:12, John 17:4, etc.

When we are attacked for limiting what we believe to what is contained in the divine Scriptures, (sola Scriptura) we simply point to John 10:35, Romans 10:17, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, etc. And when someone says that sola scriptura is not enough, we say, "Why not? Would Jesus have left us an incomplete Gospel?"

Christians believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had four other sons and at least two daughters. If our belief is contested, we simply point to Psalm 69:8, Matthew 12:47, and 13:55,56, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19, John 7:3-5, etc.

With respect to all the unscriptural Roman Catholic doctrines that their apologists are in constant defense of, we are able to say "Where is that in God's Word?" And when they deliberately twist or misinterpret a Scripture, the Holy Spirit that indwells every believer, reminds us of His admonition recorded in Jeremiah 17:5: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." Let us pray for God's mercy on deluded Roman Catholics to be free from placing their trust in the words and doctrines of popes and bishops and priests and catechisms. Amen.

Want to learn about the Seventh Day Adventist Cult? Type or copy the following URL into the Keyword window at the top of your screen:
http://www.truthorfables.com/
http://www.in-understanding.org/

Other evangelical Christian websites:

http://www.theovercomer.org/
http://www.letusreason.org
http://contenderministries.org/
http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rome.html

CATHOLICS, for fascinating Bible readings click the dokimos link below.

Two Prepositions Confirm
the Falsehood of a Key
Roman Catholic Doctrine
by
John Schroeder
Author:
Heresies of Catholicism�The Apostate Church
About the Religion of Senators Kennedy and Kerry
Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom

PART 1

The RC doctrine herein exposed as wholly false teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin � had no normal conjugal relations with her husband, Joseph � during the years of her marriage to him. In short, according to RC doctrine, doctrine that must be accepted by the faithful as God-inspired under penalty of grievous sin, Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of our Lord Jesus. He, Jesus, is alleged to have been her only child.

Of course, the Word of God � the Bible � contains several Scripture passages that directly contradict the above-stated doctrine. For instance, a prophecy found in Psalm 69 clearly predicts that the Messiah, Jesus, will have siblings:

�I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an
alien unto my mother's children.� (Psalm 69:8)

We know the foregoing Scripture is a prophecy of the Messiah because of the verse that follows it, a verse quoted word-for-word in the New Testament.

�For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and
the reproaches of them that reproached thee are
fallen upon me.� (Psalm 69:9)

In the New Testament, in the Gospel of John, we read the following:

�And his disciples remembered that it was written,
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.� (John 2:17)

And in the Pauline epistle to the Romans, the last part of the Psalm 69:9 prophecy is chronicled as follows:

�For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written,
The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.�
(Romans 15:3)

PART 2

Documentation that the Psalm 69:8 prophecy was, in fact, a prophecy, and that it was, in fact, fulfilled during the earthly ministry of our Lord is found in these Scriptures:

�His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence,
and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see
the works that thou doest. For there is no man that
doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to
be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself
to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in
him.� (John 7:3-5)

That the Lord had blood brothers (plural) as prophesied is affirmed by the application in the foregoing Scripture of the Greek word adelphos which has but a single definition, �brother.� It can never be translated �cousin� or �kinsman� as RC apologists would have us believe. When it appears in association with a specific name or names, it always means blood brother.
In other contexts it often means a spiritual brother. Unlike the Hebrew word, ach, which in the Old Testament translates as brother, kinsman, relative, etc, the Greek word adelphos always translates, brother.

That Christ�s relationship with His brothers was less than cordial is made quite clear in the citation from John 7 reproduced above. The human condition of unbelief produces many adverse results, two of which are estrangement and alienation from God, exactly what was prophesied of our Lord�s brothers and His �mother�s children� in Psalm 69. For RC apologists to deny that Psalm 69:8 is a Messianic prophesy is to accuse the Holy Spirit - by whose inspiration we have the Scriptures � of lying to mankind. Nor can those who would defend the subject RC doctrine suggest that the �brethren� in the referenced Psalm were simply spiritual brothers and not brothers by blood, for the phrase �an alien unto my mother's children� eschews all possibility of doubt that Mary bore other children in addition to our blessed Lord.

Nevertheless, RC apologists keep trying their best to prevent the rank and file from arriving at the biblical truth, the clearly established fact, that our Lord�s mother bore four sons and at least two daughters following the virgin birth of Christ Jesus. For proof, we turn first to the Scriptures and then to the 1994 Roman Catholic Catechism.

�While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother
and his brethren (Gr. adelphos) stood without, desiring
to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy
mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak
with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said,
Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall
do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same
is my brother, and sister, and mother.� (Matthew 12:46-50)

In these revealing Scriptures, our Lord uses the obviously true fleshy relationship that existed between Himself, His mother, and His brothers as an example of the spiritual relationship each believer can look forward to following the new birth spoken of in John 3:3-6. There is no denial that the mother and brothers are His mother and Brothers. There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that the �brethren� (Gr. adelphos) who were accompanying His mother were anything but genuine half-brothers by blood, sons of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Because this same episode in which Christ�s mother and brothers sought in vain to interrupt our Lord as He was teaching is also recorded in Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21, it seems obvious that the Holy Spirit wanted it clearly understood that Mary had other sons besides our Lord, and that our Lord had brothers �according to the flesh,� as was later reported in the writings of the great early Church historian, Eusebius.

This obvious intention of the Holy Spirit is further supported by an episode recounted in the Gospel of John. Recall that our Lord was a guest at a marriage feast in the city of Cana, and that the wine supply had been exhausted. After our Lord physically changed water into a very select wine, we read the following:

�This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana
of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and
his disciples believed on him. After this he went
down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and
his brethren, and his disciples: and they
continued there not many days.� (John 2:11, 12)

From these verses there can be no doubt whatever that the �brethren� of Jesus here referred to are blood brothers and not just disciples � followers � whom the Lord later on calls brethren after His resurrection. See Mathew 28:10; Luke 22:32; John 20:17. Moreover, it is most interesting to note in the foregoing that it was the disciples of Jesus and not His brothers who �believed on him.�

In the book of Isaiah, we learn of the omniscience of God through these descriptive verses:

�I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the
end from the beginning, and from ancient times the
things that are not yet done,� (Isaiah 46:9, 10)

Whereas we humans see only what is present, and have knowledge only of what is past, God sees and knows all things from the beginning to the ultimate end. Long ago, when the Scriptures were being compiled by
�holy men of God (who) spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,� (2nd Peter 1:21), the Holy Spirit knew that one day in the future an apostate church would falsely attribute to the earthly mother of Jesus a level of perfection and holiness characteristic only of our Lord Jesus and God Himself. He foresaw that one of the steps in the glorification of Mary would be the allegation that she was a virgin, not only prior to our Lord�s birth,
but for her entire life. In the following cited Scriptures, the Holy Spirit made absolutely certain that such an allegation could not be based on the authority of God�s divine Word.

�Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, (Gr. adelphos)
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And
his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then
hath this man all these things?� (Matthew 13:55, 56)

�Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the
brother (Gr. adelphos) 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)

�Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to
see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But
other of the apostles saw I none, save James the
Lord�s (Gr. adelphos) brother.� (Galatians 1:18, 19)

�Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife,
as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of
the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5)

PART 4

The fact that Mary bore at least six more children following the virgin birth of our Lord could not have been made any clearer. The very names of His brothers are openly declared in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. And on two occasions, another contemporary of those named brothers, specifically the Apostle Paul, referred to them � one of them by name � in Scriptures the Holy Spirit inspired. Certainly, then, from God�s divine Word there can be no doubt whatever that our Lord had blood brothers, and that Mary His mother did not remain a virgin following the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. In spite of such overwhelming evidence, the Roman Catholic Church declares Mary, Christ�s mother, to be Aeiparthenos, �ever-virgin.�
When we seek to determine upon what authority such a false and, in fact, blasphemous doctrine is based, the best we can come up with is an �apologetic� that the RCC �has always understood� otherwise. From page 126 in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, (CCC) we quote:

�Against this (Mary ever-virgin) doctrine 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.�

What the RCC �has always understood,� and what the Word of God clearly declares are at variance with each other. Since God�s Word cannot lie, what the RCC has always understood is both incorrect and a failed attempt to justify heresy. Yes, there was �another� Mary. In fact there are at least three �other� Mary�s mentioned in the NT besides our Lord�s mother. And yes, the �another� Mary had two sons (not four sons, mind you) and their names happened to be James and Joses. However, the Scripture clearly shows that the James and Joses of the �another� Mary were not the same James and Joses named as children of Mary and the blood brothers of Christ.

�Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James and Joses, and the mother of
Zebedee's children.� (Matthew 27:56)

�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, etc;�
(Mark 15:40)

�And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had
bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint
him.� (Mark 16:1)

�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.�
(Luke 24:10)

Just as there were many �Mary�s� there were in the NT many different men named James, Joses, (Joseph), Jude, (Juda, Judas), John, and Simon. For instance, there was James, the son of Zebedee, who had a blood brother (adelphos) by the name of John. (Matthew 4:21) There was
James, the son of Alphaeus, who had a blood brother by the name of Judas. (Luke 6:15, 16) There was James the less, (Mark 15:40) and James the son of Mary and blood brother of Jesus. (Galatians 1:18, 19) When we look at the name �Simon� we find Simon whom the Lord named �Peter,� (Matthew 10:2), Simon the Canaanite, (Matthew 10:4), Simon the son of Mary and blood brother of Jesus, (Matthew 13:55), Simon the leper, (Matthew 26:6), Simon of Cyrene, (Matthew 27:32), and Simon called Zelotes, (Luke 6:15). Also, there was Simon the father of Judas Iscariot, (John 6:71), Simon the sorcerer, (Acts 8:9), and Simon the tanner, (Acts 9:43.)

The point made here is that the repetition of the names James and Joses as sons of �another� Mary in no way authorizes the RCC to teach that they were �close relations of Jesus,� and that the Holy Spirit has lied
to us in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:18, 19, in which our Lord�s blood brothers are named. It is more than likely that the James and Joses belonging to the �another� Mary were no relation at all to our Lord.
Certainly there is no Scriptural basis whatever upon which to base such a
wicked, heretical claim.

But the Scriptural evidence that Mary was the mother of children other than our blessed Lord is plentiful, and we have not yet exhausted it. There is more. It is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In Matthew 1:25, the Holy Spirit tells us that Mary brought forth � not just a son � but her firstborn (Gr. prototokos) son. And in Luke 2:7 the same exact phrase appears; Mary �brought forth her firstborn son.� Surely the Holy Spirit did not deceive us by describing the birth of an only child as her firstborn. Of course he didn�t. When we observe how He described the birth of John the Baptist, the only child of Elisabeth and Zacharias, we note the absence of the word, �firstborn.�

� Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be
delivered; and she brought forth a son.� (Luke 1:57)

As the only child of Elisabeth and Zacharias, John the Baptist was both the firstborn and the lastborn of his parents. But the Holy Spirit has chosen to eschew use of the �firstborn� reference in his case, most likely for the purpose of emphasizing the fact that Christ was the firstborn of Mary, and that other children were the fruit of her marriage to Joseph. Our Lord was the �only begotten� of the Father (John 1:14) through the power of the Holy Spirit, but He was the very firstborn of Mary who conceived her other children in the normal, God-designed manner; that is through sexual union with her husband, Joseph. That she and Joseph engaged in the procreative act is confirmed by two prepositions selected by the Holy Spirit to be the final refutation of the RCC�s �ever-virgin� claim.

The two prepositions are, �before,� and �till� and both are highlighted in the Scriptural verses cited here:

�Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,
before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then
Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not
willing to make her a publick example, was minded
to put her away privily. But while he thought on
these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared
unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for
that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call
his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from
their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall
bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Then 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.� (Matthew 1:18-25)

PART 6

The preposition �before� is a �time� word. It is descriptive of a period of time - either specified or indefinite - that existed prior to the occurrence of some happening. Example: �He graduated college five years before he started his own business.� In this example, we see that �he� was a college grad, that five years passed, after which he started his own business. The fact is �he� started his own business. The word �before� simply tells us what transpired prior to starting the business.

In the forgoing Scriptural passage, Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, was found to be pregnant before she and Joseph had consummated their marriage. The fact is they did consummate their marriage. The very appearance of the preposition �before� in association with the phrase �came together� offers indisputable proof that the marriage was in fact consummated at a later date. In this case, the word �before� simply tells us what happened prior to Mary and Joseph�s �coming together.� For there is no question at all regarding the meaning of the phrase �came together.� That phrase is translated from the Greek word, �sunerchomai� whose literal meaning is �to cohabitate.� In short, Joseph found that Mary was with child before he and she had had sexual relations.

To make absolutely certain all mankind would be sure that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage, one richly blessed with four sons and at least two daughters, the Holy Spirit has given us another preposition, the preposition �till,� used in association with the phrase �knew her not.� Once again we see that the word, �until,� (shortened form, �till�), is another �time� word. It is descriptive of a time period during which an action that occurred later was postponed. Example: �He waited until the sun had set to make the phone call.� The fact is �he� did make the phone call. The word �till� simply relates that the phone call was postponed for a specific period of time.

In the Scriptures cited, the word �till� informs us that sexual activity between Joseph and Mary did, in fact, take place. It was simply postponed for a specific period of time, that is, during Mary�s virginal pregnancy with Christ Jesus. The phrases �knew her,� or �knew his wife,� in both Testaments always conveys the information that normal conjugal privileges have been experience by a husband and wife. There are no exceptions in either Testament. Joseph refrained from sexual activity with Mary until after she had borne the Lord Jesus. To have refrained from such activity throughout their marriage would have been sinful on both their parts.

�The wife hath not power of her own body, but the
husband: and likewise also the husband hath not
power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not
one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that
ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and
come together again, that Satan tempt you not for
your incontinency.� (1 Corinthians 7:4, 5)

The Word of God prohibits a celibate marriage, pointing out the danger of two people refraining from sexual activity for any lengthy period of time. In short, it would have been against the will of God for Mary to have remained a virgin throughout her marriage to Joseph.

-30-

Welcome to ESCAPED CATHOLICS SAVED BY GRACE

About This Ministry

"Heresies of Catholicism...The Apostate Church"

CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES NO APOLOGETICS

More Help For Trapped Roman Catholics

My Favorite Products