English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

That Peter was the first Pope but yet he was married and watching her die was part of his own crucifixtion... Also why do they believe that Mary remained a virgin when it clearly says in Matthew and Mark and Luke and Acts that Jesus had siblings that were Mary's kids...???

2006-10-16 09:32:08 · 33 answers · asked by 57chevy 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

33 answers

I agree that RCC have weird doctrines... But Jesus had no siblings and Mary was a virgin..

Catholics base their claims on the following verse:
Matt 16: 18And 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. 19And 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. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


But, amazingly forgotten (very conveniently) .... just 3 verses later in Matt 16:23, after Jesus has supposedly appointed Peter as the first pope, what happens?
.... 23But Jesus turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
What! ...Jesus calls Peter Satan!? .... And this is remarkably similar to what the Catholic church does - savouring the things of men rather than the things of God. It's also a really strange way to talk to someone you've just appointed Pope

2006-10-16 09:35:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 5

I can't answer the question about Peter being married -- though I can say that prohibitions against priests being married came later.

As for Mary's virginity -- I can answer that. Protestants believe that Mary had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus for two reasons. The first is that the King James Version of the Bible states in one place that they had no relations until Jesus was born, and states in another place that James was the brother of Jesus.

Both of these statements are due to a poor translation. The original Greek does not have the same connotation as the word "until" -- but rather states that there were no relations prior to the birth of Jesus -- and implies nothing about what happened afterward. As for James -- the Greek word means "close relative" -- and was used to describe cousins as well as siblings. The fact that it is translated as "brother" does not mean that it was a brother.

Since Catholics do not recognize the KJV as an official translation of the Bible, they did not fall into the trap that English speaking protestants fell into.

As for the further belief that Mary remained a virgin -- the Bible contains a passage where Mary is talking about getting married to Joseph. She frets, because she took a vow of virginity. Catholics believe that if the mother of Jesus took a vow to God to remain a virgin -- she would keep it. Protestants would not come to the same conclusion, because this passage is in the part of the Bible that Martin Luther edited out of the Protestant Bible.

2006-10-16 10:06:03 · answer #2 · answered by Ranto 7 · 1 1

One Question at a Time!!

Pope--------------------
Peter means "Rock" as Jesus named him {John 1:42}
Upon that Rock the Church is built {Matt 16:18}
Both Jesus and Peter walked on water { Job 9:8; Mat 14:28-31}
Peter alone was given "Keys to the Kingdom" {Matt 16:19 & Is 22:22}
Peter had Special Authority because Jesus asked Peter to be Chief Shepherd {John 21:15-16}
Jesus set Peter the task of seeing that the Apostles taught Truth {Luke
22:31-32}
Peter Led Church in making decisions {Acts 2:1-41; 15:7-12}
Apostles given full Authority {Mat 18:18}
Authority recognized by Paul {Acts 16:4;Gal 2:1-2}
Apostolic successors have learning of Spirit {1 Cor 2:11-13}

Siblings-----------------
Jesus had “Brothers” according to scripture.
There was no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “cousin” so they may have been cousins or stepbrothers as easily as brothers.
No verse defines anyone other than Jesus as the son of Jesus’ mother.

2006-10-16 13:40:34 · answer #3 · answered by 0sprey 2 · 0 0

U don't know that recently the Pope was about 2 announce that there was no such place as Limbo,
after how many years of lying 2 people?
It's gone v quiet & I didn't hang around 2 wait 4 the statement.http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=174&id=1484732006
They've found new scrolls, some have been translated, some R still awaiting the input from all Religious orders.
I'm fully aware that Jesus wasn't an only child. But I do draw a line that Jesus married & had children, he didn't.
I & this is only my own opinion that Mohammed aka Islam, was Jesus' Brother. Scarred & hurt by the death of his brother at the hands of the Jews/Romans.
Went away & started his own religion, still worshipping his god but just not with the people who signed his brothers death-warrant.
Anyway link re. new scriptures, below.
Religions may lose direction, soon.
As more & more information is released from these new scrolls.

2006-10-16 09:56:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

All the apostles were married except for John. (the "favorite" apostle, who, incidentally, also did not betray Jesus, who was at the foot of the cross, who was entrusted with his mother, and who did not die a martyr's death)

"Pope" is a word that came into play much later. It is Italian (Latin, actually) for "papa" or "father". A spiritual father. I love Peter. He was appointed by Christ, yet he was tossed out of the synagogue. After Peter, Linus was appointed. Did you think that Peter just died without a successor? did you think that Jesus didn't care after that about who would come next? There is an entire unbroken chain of Popes from Peter to Peter, so to speak, who will be the next and final Pope.

Jesus' brothers is a translation used loosely to describe Jesus' cousins. Even in my native tongue, there is no word "cousins" they are called "Other" brothers and "other" sisters. Besides, Mary and Joseph, who lived in a "tribe" of David, considered all those within it brothers and sisters, while someone in the priesthood was a "cousin" although clearly not that closely related at all.

2006-10-16 09:43:28 · answer #5 · answered by Shinigami 7 · 2 0

Having come up with the no marriage policy a thousand years into the church's history, they determined to justify their policy, implemented so that all priestly property would revert to the church, by reading back into the Bible that Jesus brothers and sisters were either children from Joseph's first marriage (woven from whole cloth, no evidence whatever), or that "brothers and sisters" meant "cousins."

While it can mean male and female relatives, they strain the context of Matthew 13:55-56 "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" The intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret brothers and sisters as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father. Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus' mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? Mary's perpetual virginity and status as "Queen of Heaven" are simply not Biblical in any way, but neither is praying to saints venerating statues idol worship).

2006-10-16 09:48:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I concur with J.P. True, Jesus did rebuke Peter. But, when speaking with the apostles, he tells them that Satan has ask for them. But Jesus tells Peter that he prayed (specifically) for Peter. Peter clearly has primacy. He is mentioned in the NT more than the other apostles combined.

If anyone is truly interested it what Catholics actually believe about Peter, Mary and many other doctrinal issues, read the Catechism
vatican.va/archive

Or, if reading is too much, but you have an MP3 player, you'll find some topics discussed quite well here:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download

It has been said that there may only be a hundred or so believers who stand in opposition to what the Catholic Church teaches, but thousands who stand in opposition to what they THINK the Catholic Church teaches.

God Bless,

MoP

2006-10-16 09:49:03 · answer #7 · answered by ManOfPhysics 3 · 0 1

Well as we all know every religion has their own way of interpreting the bible. I also have the same issue with the catholic religion as far as the whole issue of pope's not being able to marry, and as far as jesus's mother mary being a virgin. I would say read the bible and gather your own thoughts about it. Also pray, and make sure your relationship with God is flourishing, and you will be able to decipher between the bull.

2006-10-16 09:40:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The lack of marriage thing has nothing to do with the Bible, it is a reaction to the laws of inheritance in the medieval ages. Sons of priests were trying to claim their father's priestly title and ownership of the land when their father died, as if it was a feudal title. Since being a priest required years of hard study and learning, the church put an end to this theft-by-inheritance by simply ensuring priests could have no (legitimate) sons.

The language used in the new testament didn't have words for 'cousin', 'uncle', 'aunt', etc. His first [female] cousin would have been called his sister, his first [male] cousin would have been his brother.

Mary was given the special dispensation of having been born free from the original sin because only a perfect human could carry the flesh of God almighty. Such a status elevated her ultimately to one purpose and one alone. God would not remove his graces after they are given, so it is logical in light of the above fact that Mary remained virgin her entire life.

Had she had any other sons, Jesus would not have needed to look down from the cross and entrust Mary to James, rather, he would have known his mother would have been entrusted to the next male heir.

2006-10-16 09:38:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

peter was celibate. so ur wrong.

where does it say clearly? it must be really clear because out of all the people who critize catholicism none have brought that up.

does it actually say 'mary's kids' or jesus's brothers and sisters, because A. Joseph was previously married and had other kids and B. brothers and sisters, in that time, also could mean cousins.


J.P.'s answer completly owns.

2006-10-16 09:42:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Uhhnmm because they are stupid?
You have to be seriously out-of-touch with the real world to say virgin birth with a straight face. SOMEBODY impregnated her-after all, SHE was HUMAN, right?
Read some other fables about heroes who were half god and half human and you can see where they got the PAGAN idea of virgin birth. It is silly. and like you said, jesus had siblings, even by the catholic bible's own accounts.
Lots of Popes were married, and had children. Somewhere in their history they decided that marriage interferred with being a god-figure on earth.
Why not give up the whole bashing catholics gig and learn what you DO believe. There is a LOT more out there that makes sense to thinking people.
Try Buddhism, and atheism, Unitarianism, Judaism, and read, read, read, and make up your own mind. Quit wasting precious time trying to make sense of christian theory.
It is for people who left their brains at the door.

2006-10-16 09:42:27 · answer #11 · answered by Lottie W 6 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers