Expert: Messianic Rabbi Yochanan Levine - 1/23/2007

Question
John,

Everything you post as your proof is as you say "debated", as we have been doing.  It is good to debate as it does help others see the perspective and the so called "proofs" from both sides of an arguement or perspective.  If others who show and interest with these words we have exchanged learn something about the Catholic Church and the origins of christian doctrine and beliefs so much the better.  My whole purpose in starting this dialogue has been accomplished.  Anyone reading these words can take from them what they will.  As for me, the documents left behind by the church fathers show one thing, you as I stated in an earlier post disregard them.  It seems your contention is that the church of Rome just overpowered everyone, took all their writings, burned or destroyed that which disagreed with what they wanted others to believe, and established the Roman Catholic Church as the only game in town.  Nevermind again that you have no proof of this.  It is a widely spread story perpetuated by those of a protestant mindset to divorce christianity from the Catholic church.  Therebye, then being able to put forth "their" protestant views.  The truth is as a human institution run by humans for 2000 years the Church has done many bad as well as many good things.  Just like humans to be imperfect.  Yet, the church emerged over 2000 years with a sound doctrine based on the old and new testament writings, the Sacred tradition, and the church's teaching magistrum as the one institution that can guide into all "truth" as promised by Jesus to his apostles and their successors.  The church has its proof of this.  Others who disagree have their opinions and interpretation of history like you.  Yet, your proof of how it all happened is spotty and at best like all the other protestant stories in protest of the church.  Jesus would be a liar if paganism took over the doctrines as he told Peter, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (i.e. the church).  I beleive Jesus.  To believe the apostles is to believe Jesus as He said, "As the Father has sent me so I send you, and whoever believes in you has believed in Me and the Father who has sent Me."  Your list again of things you show as clearly pagan are very much debated.  Like what you said about "Mary"

"Mary and the teaching that she was a perpetual virgin even though the New Testament tells us clearly that Jesus was not an only child."  The new testament does nothing of the sort if you are a Catholic.  There are many points about this that are open for to debate with explanations that the church has had for centuries, some I posted for you in an earlier thread.  Consider the Church's explanation about Jesus' so called "brothers" or "bretheren".

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

These verses when taken in context with Catholic Church teaching, and the Tradition of the Church paint a different picture of who Jesus' brothers actually are.

In closine, you say something completely transparent about your views of the Church in this statement:

More and more people are coming to reject the Catholic Church as a lukewarm hypocritical institution that has long abused its self-appointed authority. Such people, MYSELF INCLUDED, are trying to determine what Jesus' message really was and how they can live their lives harmonious with it. We need teachers, but unfortunately our teachers have lied to us so we must go it alone.
Do you believe that Jesus is your savior?  Do you rely on your faith in Him for your salvation?  Are you a christian or some new age type?  








-------------------------------------------
The text above is a follow-up to ...

-----Question-----
John,

I though I would start a new thread that might lead us to an even better understanding.  First, you agreed with my dates of the writings of the fathers, as you said "It is your belief that the references you cited are historically from the periods they are ascribed to. For the most part, as I've said, I agree with your dates." In that then we have agreement that if my dates are correct that Constantine would have had very little to do with the church's doctrines and practices up until he had the power to have done anything around the early 4th century.  Also, since the jews and the Roman authorities persecuted the christians thoughout the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, the pagan practices you say were part of the church beleifs would have made it more acceptable to them, and it was not.  It took an edict from a sympathetic allbeit pagan emperor to make what the christians believed legal.  So those doctrines and beliefs that developed before Constantine were the same ones that they were persecuted for.  Jesus, rose from the dead.  The scriptures and the testimony of those who saw him is overwhelming.  There is little to refute it other than opinions of his detractors.  They have no proof that he didn't rise.  Like you, they just disregard what the jewish christians and gentile christians wrote and passed on about jesus as the church became more prevelent in the world.  So, when Jesus says to Thomas, "Put your finger into the marks in my hand, place you hand in my side, see that it is me", and Thomas responds "My Lord and my God", Jesus, the Tohah following jew, would have refuted him for he would have followed only one god.  Yet, Jesus did not correct him in fact He emphasized even more his divinity by saying, "Because you have seen, now you beleive?  Blessed are they that do no see yet still believe."  Jesus called himself God right then and there.  Jesus was not a Torah following jew.  He was a Torah fullfilling God.  The teachings that came from him through his apostles made it into those writings that could be proven to come from them or the apostles disciples.  That is why they made it into the new testament.  Not they were preferred over others.  The church Jesus started with Peter and the Apostles, the same one that Paul preached about with the Apostles blessing, recorded the words and traditions as Paul wrote and passed them on.  Again, it was not just a point of favoring views, it was passing on practiced beliefs and doctrine.  As time went on these doctrines were more clearly defined by the Church as the Church was supposed to guard and pass on the truth as it was revealed by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised.  Jesus said believe and be baptised.  Peter and the Apostles told the jews, "Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of your sins."  Paul, when the scales fell from his eyes and could see was as the scriptures put it, was immediately baptised.  I wonder where?  He was in a house at the time, did they submerge him in the tub or jaccuzzi?  Most likely water was poured over his head 3 times and the words in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit......were recited.  The fact that in 248 Origen writes that "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." 65 years before pagan Constantine made Christianity legal again shows the very early practice by the church of infant baptism.  It was not a pagan practice but a christian one. The most common theme in your responses is this:

IT IS MY VIEW HOWEVER that the Church has altered the teachings and the writings of Jesus and his first followers.

I SIMPLY DO NO ACCEPT that it rightly reflects the teachings of Jesus and his early followers.

I BELIEVE THAT many of its teachings are from a later period.

This is why I DOUBT YOU and I WILL COME to a point of consensus

I DENY the authority of the Roman papacy, although I GO FUTHER THAN THEY AND ALSO QUESTION the Church's core doctrines

I DO MAINTAIN that the teachings of Jesus and his followers were squarely based on the religion of the Jews. (PROOF?)

As I'VE SAID, IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT as Gentiles gained increasing authority within the once Jewish sect they gradually redefined the teachings of Jesus according to their own Pagan beliefs. (PROOF?)

I QUESTION that Jesus or his followers did

It seems to me most of what you believe about early christians, the church, the faith of Jesus and his followers is based on no what the chuch fathers have written or even what the Torah says or any other jewish historian for that matter...the common thread in what you believe is "I".

If you worship the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses you would worship Jesus.  Biblical support for this is abundant, church tradition makes it clear, and the Magistrum of the Church Jesus founded which lives on today fully accepts it.
As Jesus said, "BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM".  Maybe as a God fearing man you should leave the "I" out of your responses and see what God has revealed in his word and in his church throughout 20 centuries.....

M.M.


-----Answer-----
Hi MM,

You: "...if my dates are correct that Constantine would have had very little to do with the church's doctrines and practices up until he had the power to have done anything around the early 4th century."

While I do agree for the most part with the accepted dates, understand that I didn't say that Constantine personally came up with all of these non-Christian teachings taught by your Church. I do not believe the issue to be that clear cut. The Church has woven a very through web of deception that is not easy dissected.

As I said in my last reply, I am convinced that as the once-Pagan Gentiles began to outnumber Jews in the Church they began adding their own beliefs and doctrines gradually, based upon their lack of knowledge of Judaism, its scriptures and Jesus' dissertations on them.

I also believe that once a local church was planted by a knowledgeable traveling evangelist, the locals would generally be trained in the essentials of the faith and left in charge of the local congregation. Local leaders would then preach the Gospel message as they understood it in terms of their own Pagan backgrounds and assumptions. Areas where certain Pagan traditions and beliefs were well established would doubtless influence those official beliefs and traditions held by the "true doctrines" and these anomalies would then creep into the doctrines held by the local church and its elders. As local congregations grew and sent out their own missionaries or as Christians from various areas discussed their beliefs, these teachings, seeming perfectly rational to the Pagan mind, spread church to church, elder to elder.

Early Christianity then, given the nature of the world at that time, would have been very autocephalic and while occasional letters or visits from foreign evangelists might temper local understandings, the daily belief systems of the local congregates would hold more sway. I believe this is one reason the Universal Church, once established, enforced its doctrines so strictly, to control local diversity.

The obvious problem with this view is that it cannot be proven from the documents that survived the Roman rise to global authority. this does not, of itself, disprove it however.

My belief therefore is that prior to Constantine's usurpation of the Church, there existed within it many diverse competing views. This is evident from the New Testament in verses that warn of popular heretical teachings such as II Thes. 2:2, Gal 1:9 and so on, including the reference to Rome itself at Rev. 2:13. It is further evident from the many Catholic documents condemning the various heresies.

My contention is that certain people were preaching false doctrines while others were preaching true doctrines. Rome was an important hub of these false teachings. When Emperor Constantine proclaimed his very unChristian vision (in my name conquer? Jesus said 'My kingdom is not of this world!' and 'He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword' etc.) and proceeded to take control of the ongoing debate, he announced himself to be the head of the Church and proclaimed which doctrines would be official dogma and which rejected as heresy.

Many of these doctrines existed prior to Constantine, but by his authority the determinations were made of which would be accepted as true Christian doctrine and which would be deemed heresy. Constantine sided with the Paganized doctrines because these better fit in with the overall beliefs of the empire and his own beliefs as a worshiper of  Sol Invictis. This cut off all debate as holding different views quickly became a capital offense.

As the Church consolidated its authority, a series of meetings and counsels took place to determine the Church's doctrine and future. All available writings were collected and collated and official dogma and canon was established. All other doctrines were deemed heresy, all other writings were destroyed or placed in the Vatican vaults. Very few survived.

You: "...Also, since the jews and the Roman authorities persecuted the christians thoughout the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, the pagan practices you say were part of the church beleifs would have made it more acceptable to them, and it was not."

Not so at all. Everything takes time to develop. Roman persecution of the early Church would have motivated the Gentile Believers to embrace various aspects of Roman religion in order to fit in. Again, Rome was a major hub in this attempt. Besides, as I explain above, many of these teaching were already believed anyway. This merger worked perfectly as Church leaders later realized that the Paganized beliefs of the sect would form the perfect foundation upon which to build the new Universal Church and hence it was founded in Rome, seat of the heresy. Had the early Christians held unanimously and firmly to their Jewish roots, Rome would never have incorporated their movement, they would merely have crushed them or continued trying to. The vast amount of Paganism included in the Church is clear evidence of this point.

Again, much of this Paganization of the Church was not an intentionally thought-out process. It was the inclusification of previously held beliefs, it was a way of answering issues not understood. It was also at times a concession  to encourage conversion. It wasn't just one thing, it was the result of many experiences, debates and missionary needs of people who refused to give up certain beliefs or customs, and so on.

Again, a case in point is the near deification of Mary and the teaching that she was a perpetual virgin even though the New Testament tells us clearly that Jesus was not an only child. Certain Pagans clearly demanded a Goddess figure and Mary was rewritten to meet this need. The Bible merely says  that future generations will consider her to have been blessed to carry the babe, as one chosen for such a holy task would clearly be. There is nothing, outside of Church Tradition, that would have her in such a glorified goddess role. In many Catholic churches Mary receives far more worship than Jesus, who receives far more worship than God and yet God says clearly that He will not share his glory with anyone else.

The obvious fact that the Church has embraced so much overt Paganism makes it very unlikely that they didn't so early on as well.

You: "...So those doctrines and beliefs that developed before Constantine were the same ones that they were persecuted for..."

Not so, they were persecuted for being Jews, they were persecuted for holding the God of Israel and the prophet/messiah Jesus above the Roman pantheons, and, more specifically, they were persecuted for refusing to submit to Roman law in various areas. They were not persecuted for doing and believing the same things done and believed by the Romans, such makes no sense.

The Romans worshiped on Sunday so why would the followers of Jesus be persecuted for worshiping on that day rather than on the biblical Sabbath?

The Pagans worshiped trinitarian gods, so why would they persecute the followers of Jesus for believing in a trinity?

The Romans believed in divine incarnations for their gods, they believed in priesthoods with the power to forgive sins, they believed in goddesses, they believed in reciting predefined prayers on beads, etc. etc. No, they persecuted the followers of Jesus for the same reason they persecuted the Jews, for believing in a single Supreme Deity Who refused to share His worship with ANYONE, for holding to the Sabbath rather than honoring Sunday, for rejecting the goddesses, for maintaining that only the one God can and does forgive sins and so on. If 1st-3rd century Christians believed what the Roman Church began teaching in the 4th century, there would have been absolutely no reason to persecute them.

As I've said before, I personally hold deep respect for the Paganized Church, Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Heterodox. Many of the questions I answer at AllExperts.com come from sincere Christians and I answer them according to standard Christian beliefs. I am 100% convinced that God has, does and will use the Church to better humanity and to draw people closer to His Divine Heart. I have no problem with this.

As for Jesus' death, burial and resurrection... I have no problem with this either, nor do I question it. God is mighty and does many mighty works. Through God's power, Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, etc. so of course God could raise him the dead... piece of cake.

As a side bar, a few years ago in India, Guru Satya Sai Baba was giving a public audience in front of his ashram. A skeptical Christian challenged him, pointing out that Jesus had walked on the water. The elderly  acarya placed his hands together and said a praise of Jesus whom he considered an avatar (an incarnation of God). He then turned and swam away through the desert sands! This was witnessed by hundreds of people.

As for Thomas replying, "My Lord and my God," such verses are often debated. What did he mean? Was he giving glory to his Lord and his God in heaven for the works he then beheld? Was he speaking to Jesus, referring to him a God? Was he acknowledging the power of God in Jesus (i.e. as a holy man) rather than saying Jesus was, himself, God? Was this clause added by the Church fathers to support their teachings? Who knows?

But how about verses where Jesus clearly says, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." Jesus could not be God if God is greater than he is... I know of course the rebuttal, that Jesus was speaking in terms of his human nature, but that is merely conjecture. What he says is that the Father is greater than he.

You:  Jesus was not a Torah following jew.  He was a Torah fullfilling God.

I do not see this in the Scriptures when taken as a whole. No where does the Tanack predict a physical incarnation of God. What is meant by 'I came not to destroy but to fulfill' is open to debate. Debate is good, but it does not support your point in my opinion.

You: "...That is why they made it into the new testament.  Not they were preferred over others..."

Generally stated, there were four consideration as to which writings were accepted. They were are follows:

  1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

** Many books were widely accepted as having apostolic origins that were rejected.

  2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
** This simply is not true, unless possibly you mean at the end of the fourth century, in other words, once Rome was in control of the Church. The people appointed to the Seven Ecumenical Councils made the determination based on their beliefs of what was universally accepted as scripture by the Holy See. Even the New Testament references accepted books that these counsels rejected.
  3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
** Again, those liturgically used in the congregations the Roman hierarchy approved of.
  4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
**This was the main consideration. Does the document support Roman Catholic teaching. If it did not, it was rejected. From the perspective of the Roman Church this of course makes complete sense. However if those making the determinations were themselves heretics, then it is a problem. My conviction is that the Roman hierarchy was (and is) at odds with the teachings of Jesus, hence their selections were biased away from Jesus' teachings. To accept this point as evidence of biblical credibility one would have to accept the Church as the authorized representatives of Jesus and his Church.

You "...the Church as the Church was supposed to guard and pass on the truth as it was revealed by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised.

Yes indeed, the operative word there being "supposed." I believe the Church failed in this mandate. In one of his parables Jesus speaks of invited guests to the feast and yet they refuse the invitation. I see this as the case with the Christian Church. Through Rome they betrayed their call. Nonetheless those who were not called, i.e. the Roman Church and its offshoots, have been allowed to attend to the things of God. In the future however they, as limbs artificially grafted onto the tree of Israel, will be cut away and the original tree will again sprout. This, I believe, is what is happening today. In the Laodicean prophecy of Revelation 3 Jesus, through John, perfectly describes the modern Church.

You, paraphrasing my views: "I DENY the authority of the Roman papacy, although I GO FUTHER THAN THEY AND ALSO QUESTION the Church's core doctrines"

I did not say this, I said, 'I (as the Protestants) DENY the authority of the Roman papacy, although I GO FUTHER THAN THEY (i.e. the Reformers) AND ALSO QUESTION the Church's core doctrines. The Protestant Reformers failed to do this and so they did not reestablish the Movement of Jesus.

You: "I DO MAINTAIN that the teachings of Jesus and his followers were squarely based on the religion of the Jews. (PROOF?)"

There's the rub as I've acknowledged from the beginning of our conversation. The Roman hierarchy was very effective in destroying evidence. By considering the times and circumstances in which Jesus and his followers lived, reading what is available, reading between the lines, reading some of the extant Christian writings excluded from the New Testament, and looking at the vast amount of Paganism present within the Church and its teachings, I am convinced that my overall view here is correct. As I also said, at this late date I don't think it would be possible for anyone to restore the original Christian faith and belief systems. From what we have left however, I do believe it is clear that Jesus no where rejected Judaism. What he clearly did according to the New Testament was point out that the Jewish authorities of his day were not rightly presenting it. He did not accept the Oral Torah as inspired.  He charges that the leaders of Judaism were becoming bogged down in their traditions and missing the point of the Law and the blessings of Abraham. Simply stated, they were making the Torah into an idol. I simply see no way that Jesus and hos followers would have believed doctrines that were so absolutely contrary to everything taught in the Tanack and believed by their people. It's not rational unless one accepts the notion that Jesus traveled and studied in India and similar places which i don't think has any real support, as tempting an idea as that is.

I have given you the proof of evidence. Nowhere does the Bible support chanting on beads (rosary). Hindus and Roman Pagans do, but the idea is foreign to first century Jewish practice.

The collars worn by Catholic priests date to Pagan times, not to biblical times.

The worship of Mary is anti-biblical but harmonious with Paganism.

There is no way Jesus was born on the Winter Solstice but Christians observe this ancient Pagan holiday with zeal.

The Christmas tree is specifically condemned in the Torah, yet Christian utilize it.

The very name Eastar is from the Pagan Goddess Eostar as are the Easter eggs.

The stations of the Cross are of Pagan origin.

The belief in eating the god as a cracker or Host is Pagan.

All Saints Day is the Pagan holiday of Samhain.

Jesus died on a "starous" which, as the New Testament says, was a tree or stake, not a cross. The cross is a powerful ancient Pagan symbol.

The nails in the palms would never have held, and yet taken with the other symbols bespeak the Pagan Five Fold Kiss of initiation into the afterlife.

Kissing the feet of Jesus on the crucifix and bowing before images and icons is clearly Pagan idolatry and strictly forbidden in the Torah.

Biblical baptism is by immersion not by sprinkling, precisely where Paul was immersed is not important, but no where does the Bible say he was sprinkled and nowhere is their biblical support infant baptism. You've addressed these points to your satisfaction but not to mine.

Same with "holy relics" and so on, very Pagan in nature...

etc. etc. etc.

The Roman Church is full to overflowing with Paganism. And that's cool with me. If you wish to worship God through this religion I certainly would say nothing to discourage you. Mazletov! The truth is however, there is no way this is the Church of Jesus. Its a Pagan communion based loosely on the Gospel message.

Pointing to the number of times I say "I" is just silly. In a discussion such as this "I" am sharing what "I" believe the facts bear out with you. As I have stated several times, I don't think there is anyway we will come to an agreement here, and that's OK! Its not my intention to convert you to anything. I am merely attempting to answer your questions. There are many excellent reasons why a sincere person who wishes to walk the Path shown by Jesus would not do so within the confines of the Christian religion, especially within the Catholic Church. More and more people are coming to reject the Catholic Church as a lukewarm hypocritical institution that has long abused its self-appointed authority. Such people, myself included, are trying to determine what Jesus' message really was and how they can live their lives harmonious with it. We need teachers, but unfortunately our teachers have lied to us so we must go it alone.

Maranatha,
~John of AllFaith  

Answer
Hi MM,

Yes, it is all debated and debatable.

In my opinion what matters is a person's relationship with God, not with a power structure. People within and without the Roman Catholic structure can and do have wonderful relationships with our loving and merciful God. At this point in history, much of what we have discussed is little more than semantics to most people. The Church and others did what they did and these things can not be changed. The question now is how a person living in 2007 can come to know God and develop a relationship with Him. We now know that the Church is not required to accomplish this. This is important to know. One can worship God in the Catholic Church or out of it. God is very merciful.

You: "It seems your contention is that the church of Rome just overpowered everyone, took all their writings, burned or destroyed that which disagreed with what they wanted others to believe, and established the Roman Catholic Church as the only game in town. Nevermind again that you have no proof of this."

Yes that's what I'm saying and I think history supports this view. Fortunately this intention failed and today people are free to decide where and how to worship God. Of course thousands upon thousands of people were tortured and died at the hands of the Church in the meantime. I think the horrors and evils wrought by the Inquisition is solid proof, the Official Roman Catechism makes this clear when it denies the spiritual legitimacy of other branches of the Church, the Burning Times were solid proof, etc.etc. When the Church had the power to crush all other views it did. The history of the Church is bloody and oppressive until the point when it lost the ability to be so.

You: "Yet, the church emerged over 2000 years with a sound doctrine based on the old and new testament writings..."

So... Before we end our discussion perhaps you can answer these points. Where does the Torah and Tanack or even the New Testament support the following:

The rosary
Mary as co-redemptrix
Ignoring the Sabbath
Worshiping on Sunday
Baptism by sprinkling
Christmas and Christmas trees
All Saints Day
Revering icons, statues etc.
Kissing crucifixes, shawls etc.
Holy water
Saints as anything other than all believers
Infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra or otherwise
The Bishop of Rome as head of the Church
Baptism for the dead
Celibate priesthood
The Immaculate conception of Mary
Perpetual virginity of Mary

That's probably enough since none of these can be supported by the Bible without twisting contexts etc. Most can't even be supported that way!

The Catholic Church places Church tradition over the Bible. That is its right, but it is simply not true that Catholicism is based on the Bible. A large percent of Catholic doctrine and practice is directly Pagan.

You: "Yet, your proof of how it all happened is spotty and at best like all the other protestant stories in protest of the church."

It is not spotty at all. You simply believe the version put forward by your denomination and will not see beyond that. Again, I respect the Church, however I am just as certain as you are that your version of what happened is spotty at best and a denial of history and the known facts.

The Catholic Church is not 2000 years old. It is about 1600 years old, still quite old of course, however it was not founded by Jesus nor by Peter, but by Emperor Constantine by pulling together various Pagan teachings that had been attached to the teachings of Jesus by what Jesus refers to as the synagogue of Satan and by outlawing 'Judaizing' when Christians tried to hold onto the original Torah-based teachings. Once again... What the Catholic Church is today is a global society that includes many many devout Christians and I am NOT rejecting their sincere faith. I believe firmly that God accepts those within the Church whose faith is sincere.

You: "...The new testament does nothing of the sort if you are a Catholic"

Do the words on the page change if one is Catholic?

Matt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him
Matt 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Gal. 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Of course you have your answers, and you share them here. People however speak plain language and these people referred to them as Jesus brothers... that's what they meant. One can prove or disprove anything to one's own satisfaction of course. It is never possible to convince a "true Believer" of anything. This is partly why I generally don't take part in these sort of discussions because (as you say):
"...These verses when taken in context with Catholic Church teaching, and the Tradition of the Church paint a different picture of who Jesus' brothers actually are."

It is indeed a different picture of Jesus than that found in the Bible. This is why the Protestant Reformation took place.

A true Believer can read a black and white statement and create "proof" that the facts are otherwise. This doesn't change the facts, it just makes everything progressively more complicated until one must accept another to manage all the lies. I personally do not accept this Vatican "other."

I believe that salvation is based solely on faith in God's grace and mercy as taught at Eph 2:8 and other verses. It does not require the acceptance of any church or religious hierarchy.

What should be transparent from my words is that the world needs God at least as much as ever. The world needs the type of credible spiritual authority with a 2000 year old tract record as you claim the Church has. The sad truth is however that for millions of people the Roman Catholic Church has lost its credibility completely. The recent sex scandals being a case in point. The problem isn't so much the abuses done by the priests but the Church's covering up of the crimes and even promoting the priests in case after case. The fact is that much of the Church, certainly including the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, is in the exact situation described in Revelations 3 and that despite the fact that Islam will soon pass the Christian Church as the world's largest religion and already is the fastest growing religion, the Church today remains unapologetically...
...neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Because of this, people are leaving the Church and very few are coming into it. Many of these people are turning to Islam. Many of these people are trying to understand the Bible and the Christian faith without the help of those whose job it is to help, the Church. You mentioned the New Agers, the main reason why such neo-Pagan movements are on the rise is because the Church is failing so miserably to offer anything meaningful to the people. A good place to start would be to hold serious Church counsels to determine what the Church did in the past and to come clean about the lies and abuses. The Church still doesn't do this however. The most one hears is what you said above, that the Church is 2000 years and has made a few mistakes... The Church has made massive mistakes and continues to make them.

I see no point in continuing our conversation. If you wish to reply to this post feel free to, but unless there is something of merit I probably wont reply. It has been interesting sharing with you and I do wish you all the best.

May God teach us both to better understand,
~John of AllFaith