Friday, March 30, 2012

*Best of DTB #164* The Sabbath Day debate show notes

These notes are in conjunction with this BlogTalkRadio show.


The show notes for this program can be found at To ask a follow up question, send it to
You ever wonder why we celebrate January 1st as the start of our calendar? The reason is that Jesus was born on December 25th and, under the law, a boy was circumcised on the Eighth day. Notice that the Eighth day mentioned here does not have to be a particular day. It is not named in Scripture as being, a particular day. Nevertheless, the Eighth day circumcision was the entrance into the Jewish community and that is why time is measured from January 1st.

The Eighth day signified new life just as surely as the 7th day signified God's rest. In terms of the week, the Eighth day was the first day, a new beginning. It foreshadowed Sunday. To be specific, Resurrection Sunday, or what we call Easter.

That is why the early Apostles understood that Circumcision was no longer required. What it foreshadowed had been fulfilled.

The same is true of the Sabbath.

God said;

8Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works.
10But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things
that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the
seventh day, and sanctified it.
(Exodus Chapter 20)

7th day Sabbatarians will insist that the Sabbath always explicitly refers Biblically to Saturday. It does not. In Exodus 12:16, the Israelites are commanded to take a Sabbath (or day of rest) on the Seventh day. The Seventh day of the week? No. The Seventh day of the Passover. Well, the passover doesn't always start on Sunday. In fact, it rarely does. It always starts on 14 Nisan. In 2012, the passover begins on Saturday, making the Seventh day, Friday.

The day of the week of the last day of creation is not named in Scripture. It is simply called The Seventh Day. What is pronounced is that you may work six days and then must rest the seventh. For this to be explicitly Biblically prescribed as a particular weekday day, we would have to know on which day God created the world and start the calendar then.

The word Sabbath is literally translated from Yom Shabbat meaning day of rest. The same Hebrew term is used in Exodus 12, concerning the Seventh day of the Passover and in Exodus 20, concerning the seventh day of the week.

Does this mean that Jews were not required to observe the Saturday Sabbath? By no means.

To understand is to get the relationship between how God's Covenant law is enforced through the Mosaic law. It was God who demands a 1 day rest out of 7 but it was the Israelites who created the Calendar to implement it.

The Mosaic law was just as binding on a Jew as the moral law but that is not the case today. We are not under the Mosaic law today. The Mosaic law demanded specific Festivals (that is, Yearly commemorations), New Moon (that is, monthly) celebrations and Sabbath (or weekly) commemorations.

All of these, along with circumcision, and prohibitions against certain food and drink were elements of the Mosaic law and shadows of what is to come later. This is clearly shown in Scripture.

Colossians 2
8Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to
the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according
to Christ:
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;
10And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power:
11In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.

13And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your
flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences:
14Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross:
15And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself.
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,
17Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

The mistake my good friend George makes is the same mistake the the Pharisees made and the same mistake made by contemporary Judaism. They focus too much on carrying the Sabbath much further than God ever intended, without ever grasping it's meaning or intent.

Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). The Pharisees, on the other hand, tried to condemn a man for carrying a mat on the Sabbath after He was cured (John 5:8-11)

Jesus was constantly upbraiding the Pharisees for their ultra-legalistic interpretation of the Sabbath at the expense of mercy and the very communion with God the Sabbath was meant to illustrate in Christ's death. The Pharisees focused on the letter of the law- "dont touch the grain", "don't carry your mat" and missed wholly the Spirit of the Law- set time aside for God, put Him first.

Here are some facts and that are not disputable;

  1. The Saturday Sabbath comes from Jewish Holy tradition-the chair of Moses-, not from direct Scripture. This, of course, makes it no less binding and truthful but only upon those under the Old Covenant.
  2. Jeremiah 31 foretells a New Covenant and, Jesus fulfills it in Matthew 26:28.
  3. The Chair of Moses was emphasized by Jesus (Matthew 23:1-3) but it was taken from them and given to another earthly authority. (Matthew 21:42-43)
  4. In the Book of Acts, we see that Church acting with that authority and speaking for the Holy Spirit in abolishing circumcision. (Acts 15:28)

That that authoritative church worshiped on Sunday is a matter quite beyond dispute.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

1 Corinthians 16:
2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

Further, that the Christian Church, from the very start, up to today, has always observed a Sunday worship cannot be denied (quotes in the show notes). The case that we are still obliged to a Saturday sabbath is wholly without Biblical or historical support.

Keep focused on that.

My opponent will doubtless play the worn-out pagan card alleging that we extrapolated Sunday worship from everything from roman gods to unicorns. He will have no evidence, of course but it will be fun to watch. Detractors of catholicism have lots of boogey men they like to conjure up whenever they are caught in a pickle but it won't sway our listeners from the plain facts.

God did indeed rest on the 7th the tomb. Death was not the final answer so the shadow was fulfilled.

John wrote his Book of Revelation from the Island of Patmos. He started by saying this;

9 I John, your brother and your partner in tribulation, and in the kingdom, and patience in Christ Jesus, was in the island, which is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus.
10 I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, (Revelation 1)
Saint Ignatius was a disciple of John and had this to say circa 100 AD;

"If, then, those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s day"
The case that the early church worshiped on Sunday is airtight.

Quotes: Source:

The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).
The Didascalia
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).
"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).
"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).
"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).
"The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).
Council of Laodicea
"Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians" (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]).
John Chrysostom
"[W]hen he [God] said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath— ‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’—he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10-11]. . . . For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill. . . . You shall not commit adultery. . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition" (Homilies on the Statutes 12:9 [A.D. 387]).
"You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?" (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).
"The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath" (Homilies on Philippians 10 [A.D. 402]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).
"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian. . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle [Paul] describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished" (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [A.D. 412]).
Pope Gregory I
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).

Closing remarks

The show notes for this program can be found at To ask a follow up question, send it to
At the end of the day, 7th day sabbatarians are right about one point. It does come down to an issue of authority. The infant church either did have the authority to declare the Sabbath Day fulfilled and initiate the Lord's Day in it's place, or they didn't. It is my position, the catholic position and, frankly, the position of the overwhelming majority of Sunday worship Christians, that they did.

This cannot help but be a touchstone onto the larger issue of Sola Scriptura, which we deal with in a future debate. Obviously, we cannot address it now.

Let me at least say this though. I believe George is a decent person. I really do. He was a police officer and people just don't generally go into that type of field unless they have courage and integrity. Does George want to love and serve Jesus Christ? I have no doubt. However, he needs to study a lot more from grounded sources.

Hosea Chapter 4 says;
My people perish for want of knowledge! Since you have rejected knowledge, I will reject you from my priesthood; Since you have ignored the law of your God, I will also ignore your sons.
I'm trying to make a point here without drifting to far afield from the direct subject and risk getting busted down by the moderator but it is next to impossible to understand doctrines like the Sabbath unless you have a fundamental understanding of Covenant Theology. The Old Testament exists for a reason. We learn God's Covenant plan through the Old Testament and we fulfill it in the New Testament.

One of the Old Testament's lesson is the authority to bind and loose. Here are two examples;

Matthew 23: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works. do ye not; for they say, and do not.

Matthew 19:
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"
4 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
7 They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"
8 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
It takes work to understand this. God gave the Old Testament Church the authority to makes many decisions on His behalf. Clearly, He gave the New testament church this same authority.

In Matthew 16 and 18, Jesus says the Church is the final authority to rule on matters of sin and to bind and loose. In Luke 10:16, He gave that church the power to speak for Him, saying "He who hears you, hears Me. He who rejects you, rejects me. He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me". The church has spoken. Sunday is our day of worship.

Thank You.

George's opening statement

Opening Statement: The Sabbath Day, March 30, 2012
by George Lujack

The Sabbath commandment is one of the most misunderstood commandments of Scripture. Before getting into what day the weekly Sabbath should be observed on, I’d like to first define how the Sabbath should be observed.

1. It is a day of rest from weekly labor. No work should be done on this day. That said, it is not a sin to do essential services such as medical care, and emergency response work, nor is it wrong to come to the aid of a stranger. Christ taught that it is not wrong to do good deeds on the Sabbath.

2. It is a day to not buy and sell or trade in whatever manner in the marketplace, for entertainment or for whatever purpose. Purchases for food and essentials should be made in advance, before the Sabbath - in preparation for the Sabbath, so that they are available when the Sabbath arrives.

3. It is a day of reverence to God. It is a day to honor God and not do our own pleasure (Isaiah 58:13).

Beginning Friday at sundown through Saturday at sundown is the seventh day Sabbath, according to how God counted days during the creation week. The purpose of the Sabbath is for a time set aside for physical rest and spiritual refreshment, a time to ponder and give thanks for the wonder of God's creation.

God did not give man the option to observe the Sabbath as a mater of his own choosing. Church fellowship and attendance is by no means not the solitary way of keeping the Sabbath, but revering and choosing Sunday over Saturday as a special day to honor God is not in accordance with keeping the Sabbath.

A person cannot observe the Sabbath every day of the week, as some say they do, in denying God’s seventh-day Sabbath. That would mean that they never purchase or sell anything nor do any work and revere God ceaselessly. This would not be practical and God does not want us to observe the Sabbath in such a manner as we choose.

Jesus and the disciples were often accused of breaking the Sabbath. In Luke chapter 6, the Pharisees accused Jesus’ disciples of plucking grains and eating them on the Sabbath, considering this “work.” It is not unlawful to eat on the Sabbath. The disciples were hungry and were eating as they passed through a grain field. The law also states that it is unlawful to muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain (Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18). What the Pharisees were doing was treating Jesus’ disciples worse that field oxen.

Now if the disciples had been in the field gathering grain for a weekly harvest, the Pharisees would have been correct in accusing them of breaking the Sabbath, as this would constitute labor. A man was once put to death under the law for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 16:32).

Observant Sabbath keeping Jews, I would say, err in some ways in which they keep the Sabbath. Following in their own traditions of man, many modern day Sabbath observing Jews do such things as not using electricity on the Sabbath, taking their phones off the receivers – so they cannot receive calls, and placing tape on the light switch on inside of their refrigerator - so that when they open their refrigerator door, the interior light will not go on. Yet they leave their refrigerators plugged in so that the food contained inside will not spoil.

This is going too far in Sabbath observation, because Jesus said that the Sabbath was made to serve man, not man to serve the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). The sun keeps shining on the Sabbath. The earth does not stop spinning on the Sabbath. Observant Jew’s non-use of electricity, telephone, internet, and motor vehicle transport on the Sabbath are doctrine of men observances of the Sabbath, not commands of God in honoring the Sabbath. What would be considered harder “work” or labor, a Jewish family walking 2-miles to a synagogue and returning on foot on the Sabbath, or that same Jewish family traveling by automobile to their synagogue and returning by their car? I would say that if the family traveled with their car, they would be resting more than if they traveled by foot, therefore “resting” according to the Sabbath.

The seventh day Sabbath was instituted by God after creation.

GENESIS 2:1-3:
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them. were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

God included the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments with guidelines of how to observe the day that He sanctified…

EXODUS 20:6-11:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

EXODUS 31:12-18:
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”
And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

The seventh day Sabbath is a perpetual covenant and everlasting sign according to Exodus 31:16-17 officially written with the finger of God according to Exodus 31:18!

History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system, Catholicism supported by Rome, repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week in its place.

The Catholic Church altered the actual Sabbath commandment issued from God - written with God’s own finger and recorded in Exodus 20:6, which states, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Catholicism reworded God’s commandment to state, “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.” Then they renamed the Sabbath day to Sunday!

By their own admission, the Catholic Church, without any indication from Scripture, changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday.

The Catholic Church claims a few reasons why they intended to change the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday....

1. They believe Christ rose on Sunday, and this somehow gives them license to change the perpetual Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday.

2. They believe that the change was part of their “divine mission,” an act of their ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.

The Catholic Church does not acknowledge other more sinister reasons reasons why they intended to change the Saturday Sabbath to …

1. Sunday worship is the traditional pagan day of worship.

2. The Catholic Church wanted to differentiate themselves from the Jews; refusing to worship on the same day the Jews did.

God ordained baptism to honor the resurrection, not the Sunday Sabbath according to Romans 6:3-5.

The Catholic Church in statements through the centuries, freely admit that they are responsible, without any direction from Scripture, for intending to change God’s Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday.

Catholic spokespersons, in their own words:

"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday." The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." - James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

"The Catholic Church took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday...And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder (a pagan god) became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Christ." - Catholic World, March, 1894."

"Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the church ever did happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Catholic Church's sense of its own power. - Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995.

"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." - Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.

"The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says, No! By my divine power I abolished the Sabbath day, and command you to keep the first day of the week. And lo, the entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church!" - Father Enright, C.S.S.R. of the Redemptoral College, Kansas City, MO as taken from the History of the Sabbath, p.802.

Well, this is one Christian who will not bow, nor obey the commands of the Catholic Church, but will obey the perpetual command of God, to remember the seventh day as the Sabbath day.

Closing Statement by George Lujack

March 30, 2012

In closing, I would just like to state the obvious about the attempt to change God’s perpetual commands, including but not limited to the weekly Sabbath day.

DANIEL 7:25:
He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law.

The office holder known as the Catholic Pope (all of them) has fulfilled this prophecy. All Catholic popes have either INTENDED to change God's laws or have upheld the intended changes of Catholic popes that came before them.

Notice how Scripture says, "He … shall INTEND to change times and law."

The Catholic pope CANNOT change God's times and laws, though that is his intention. God's times and laws REMAIN as God originally commanded them.

Therefore the seventh day Saturday Sabbath remains, no matter how many churches and people wish to observe Sunday instead.

For I am the Lord, I do not change…

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

PSALM 111:7-8:
The works of His hands are verity and judgment; all His commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever and are done in truth and uprightness.

ISAIAH 24:5:
The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

The seventh day Saturday Sabbath is a perpetual unchangeable command, written with the finger of God (Exodus 31:12-18).

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

Deeper Truth debate series rolls on tonight!

The first two debates are in the tank and tonight is #3. The show notes will be here at show time.

The show tonight is on The Sabbath Day

The show kicks off live right here.

8:00 PM Eastern time.

The call-in number is 646-595-2071. You must be registered with Blog Talk Radio to join in the chat.

Jimmy Z will be our host. Check him out at

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

*BEST of DTB #163* The Catholic Defender: Pray for the Priests of God

Daily Prayer for Priests

O my Jesus, I beg You on behalf of the whole Church ... give us holy priests. You yourself maintain them in holiness.

O Divine and Great High Priest, may the power of Your mercy accompany them everywhere and protect them from the devil's traps and snares, which are continually being set for the souls of priests.

May the power of Your Mercy, O Lord, shatter and bring the naught all that might tarnish the sanctity of priest, for You can do all things. - St. Faustina (Diary, 1052)

From: Saint Peter’s

Father John Higgins – "Who doesn’t enjoy a good BBQ with friends? When I was asked to a young couple’s home for a Young Adult Ministry Home Mass and BBQ I packed my Mass kit and off I went. I arrived about 6:00 pm with a hearty appetite and was greeted by about 15 young people. Then the phone rang and everything changed. I had to drive about 10 miles to a hospital where there was an emergency call.

I drove quickly, thinking that the nurse in charge of the ER, Anne, would be waiting for me. I knew her and her husband and children from the parish. When I walked in I could see paramedics at the foot of the only occupied gurney there, so I hurried and walked in. “Sorry, Fr. John, you’re too late. He’s gone.” Anne said, smiling. She had a lot of compassion, but also understood that I’d come as fast as I could. They were removing wires from an older man.
I noticed that he was wearing a Brown Scapular, one of the old cloth ones. I reached and said “He’s wearing an old fashioned Scapular”. When I touched it there was a beep from a monitor, then another. The nurse, Anne, said “What did you do?” I said “Nothing!” She and another nurse jumped to work, reconnecting wires and calling for help. The Paramedics stood with their jaws dropped. The patient opened his eyes and said (in an Irish accent)

“Oh, good, Father. I’ve been waiting for you. I want to go to Confession.”

I nearly fell over. I’d done nothing but seen and touched his Scapular. The next thing I knew they were working on him. He didn’t get to go to Confession, but I gave him an emergency absolution as they worked. One of the Paramedics asked if I was OK and sat me in a chair.

A couple of weeks later the man came to me for Confession and told me that the doctor couldn’t figure out what happened and had to tear up the Death Certificate he’d already started to fill out. The Paramedics had come to see him in the hospital and shown him their notes. At the bottom of the page they’d written the time and place of his death and then in big bold letters had added “BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE BY GOD”.

Miracles still happen. And no, I didn’t do it. It just happened according to God’s will. Why does He intervene in some cases and not in others? I really don’t know. I haven’t figured that out yet. But I do know that God has worked miracles in my life, the most important for me not being what He did for someone else, but what He has done over and over to bring me back from sin and death, through the Sacraments into His Covenant Relationship.

That man still had to die a natural death to be raised from the dead into eternal life. The resurrection Jesus offers all of us is eternal too. And that’s what we look forward to at Easter."

What a powerful testimony coming from Father Higgins!

The following comes from St. Francis:

"Our Lord Jesus said to His disciples: "I am The Way, The Truth and The Life. Nobody can come to the Father except through Me. If you had recognized Me, you would have recognized My Father too. And from now on you will recognize Him, since you have seen Him." Philip said to Him: "Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him: "Have I been so long a time with you and you have not learned who I am? Philip whoever sees Me, sees My Father too" (Jn. 14, 6-9).

Now, the Father dwells in light that cannot be penetrated (1 Tim. 6,16), and God is a spirit (Jn. 4, 24), and nobody has ever seen God (Jn 1, 18). Because God is a spirit, therefore He can be seen only by means of the spirit, for it is the spirit that gives life, where as the flesh is of no avail (Jn. 6, 64).

But since the Son is like the Father, he too is seen by nobody otherwise than the Father is seen or otherwise than the Holy Spirit is seen. And so it was that those who saw our Lord Jesus Christ only in a human way and did not see nor believe that He was the true Son of God, as the spirit and his Divine nature demand - they all stood condemned.

And so now with all those who see the Blessed Sacrament, sanctified by our Lord's words on the altar, through the hands of the priest, in the form of bread and wine: if they do not see and believe, as the spirit and the Divine nature demand that it is truly the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, they stand condemned. For it is the Most High who bears witness to it. He says, "This is My Body, and the Blood of the New Testament" (Mk, 14, 22-24) and, "He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood, has life everlasting." (Jn. 6, 55)

"And just as He appeared before the holy Apostles in true flesh, so now He has us see Him in the Sacred Bread. Looking at Him with the eyes of their flesh, they saw only His Flesh, but regarding Him with the eyes of the spirit, they believed that He was God. In like manner, as we see bread and wine with our bodily eyes, let us see and believe firmly that it is His Most Holy Body and Blood, True and Living.

For in this way our Lord is ever present among those who believe in him, according to what He said: "Behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." (Mt. 28, 20)

- St. Francis of Assisi

The Virgin Mary at Fatima asks us to pray for our Priests, Hebrews 13:18 echos this plea, "Pray for us, for we are confident that we have a clear conscience, wishing to act rightly in every respect." St. Paul wrote St. Timothy, "Presbyters (Priests) who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching." St. Peter encourages the Priests to "Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2-3).

Jesus wants you to utilize His priests for the good of your souls, that you would be healed through the Lord's mighty sacraments.

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

*Best of DTB #162* Once saved, always saved? A primer for Ross and Margie's Catholic roundtable

Matthew 19
16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments..

Matthew 25

45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Romans 2
6 Who will render to every man according to his works.
7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.
9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1 Timothy 6
18 To do good, to be rich in good works, to give easily, to communicate to others,
19 To lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true life.

James 1
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been proved, he shall receive a crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him.

2 Timothy 2
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us.

2 Peter 2
20For if after having escaped the pollutions of the world through [the] knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, again entangled, they are subdued by these, their last state is worse than the first.
21For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known [it] to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22But that [word] of the true proverb has happened to them: [The] dog [has] turned back to his own vomit; and, [The] washed sow to [her] rolling in mud.

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

Friday, March 23, 2012

*BEST OF DTB #160* Mary debate show notes

These notes intended for use with this BTR show

Opening Monologue

I wish to thank everyone for the opportunity to have an honest, frank discussion of the Catholic church's doctrines regarding Mary. Many will disagree, and that is just fine, but let's at least be honest about what we disagree on. A frank discussion, free of the needless hyperbole, endless supposition and outright falsehood about what my church actually teaches and believes about Mary and her special role in the salvation story.

Anyone who suggests that Mary is a goddess in the catholic faith, someone who we worship, isn't engaging in a serious conversation, let's get that right out of the way now.

God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Eternal. No Catholic ascribes these qualities to Mary. Mary was born on a particular day in time and She died on a particular day. Mary has no power whatsoever of herself, only that which is from the creator and is a reflection of God's power. Mary is not a mediator between God and Man and Mary is not our redeemer. The Catholic Mary is not modeled after Isis or any other pagan goddess and she is not the Queen of Heaven that the prophet Jeremiah referred to as being the object of sacrifices and worship. We do believe that Mary is the actual Queen of Heaven according to the Davidic model and scripture clearly shows this. Catholics worship God alone- The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, unless you are using the British use of the word worship, which means honor in our American English. For example, a Judge is called your honor in America but your worship in England.

At the same time, we do not believe people should be going to the other extreme either. Reducing Mary's role to that of just an ordinary woman that God used then set aside is just as disturbing as what we are alleged to believe. God does not use people the way that humans unfortunately sometimes do.

So, Let me give a summation of some of the Catholic beliefs concerning Mary.We have no hope of covering all these tonight so let me give you our e-mail address so you can request follow up on any with which you have a question.

  1. We believe Mary fulfills the role of The Woman of both Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:1. This is why Jesus called her Woman and not out of any disrespect. Jesus could not disrespect His own mother and break the Commandment of God.
  2. We believe that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant foreshadowed by the Old Testament.
  3. We believe that Mary fulfills the role of daughter Zion.
  4. We believe Mary was conceived without sin by a special privilege from God to prepare her to carry God's Son.
  5. We believe Mary's Body and Soul were taken into heaven at the moment of her death.
  6. We believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven fulfilling the Davidic role of the Queen Mother.
  7. We believe Mary should be called Mother of God.
  8. We believe Mary is the spiritual mother of all Christians.
  9. We believe Mary is the new Eve.
  10. We believe that Mary has miraculously appeared to thousands of Christians throughout the centuries.
  11. We believe Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

These 11 beliefs were not invented out of whole cloth, nor were they taken from any Babylonian system or any of the other nonsensical alleged sources. All 11 of these precepts find their root in scripture. If they didn't, I, nor any other devout Catholic would believe or adhere to them. The last of these, Mary's perpetual virginity, will receive special emphasis tonight.

The problem with understanding Mary is that a deep understanding of scripture requires work. Too many are not willing to put forth that work, while others rely on dubious sources for assistance. No more brilliant a Scripture Scholar has emerged in the last century than Dr. Scott Hahn and it was the deep rooted doctrines on Mary that took Hahn from rabid anti-catholic fundamentalism to devout Catholic professor.

It is not that Mary surpasses Jesus or even comes close to equaling Him. It is that Mary is so vitally central to a proper understanding of Jesus and His Covenant relationship with us, that to not come to a properly formed Biblical comprehension of Mary is to make impossible a proper Biblical comprehension of Jesus. It really is that critical.

I must emphasize again that this is not an improper elevation of Mary. She is, by no means, equal with Jesus nor ever could be. She is not Divine. Yet, the masterpiece of God's saving plan, worked by Jesus, is so intrinsically bound to Mary in so many ways. So many doctrines of God are seen and understood through the one whose very soul magnified the Lord (Luke 1:46).

Among these theological precepts are Grace, Intercession, Typology, Worship, Free Will, and Suffering. It is frustrating to me that I cannot go on for hours discussing each of these tonight, so I guess we have future articles to write and shows to produce above and beyond the library we have already amassed.

Now, on to tonight's particular topic. Did Jesus have brothers and Sisters? No, He most certainly did not. This belief was refuted centuries ago and I will do so again tonight.

The central issue of whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters hinges on linguistics. Some argue that it is a fact demonstrated on the plain face of Scripture.

Mark 3:32: And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you."

Yet, it precisely the linguistic context that provides an understanding of this passage. Consider this passage recording Mary and Joseph finding Jesus in the Temple.;

Luke 2
48: And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold,
your father and I have been looking for you anxiously."
49: And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"

Obviously, you know that when Mary said your father, She was speaking of Joseph but when Jesus said My Father, He was talking about God the Father. You know this because you know the historical context. However, there is nothing in the English rendering of this passage to indicate this. There is nothing in the Greek either. Both renderings of Father come from the same Greek word Pater. (definition in the show notes). So, this dilemma can not be solved linquisticly, only by context.
In the same way, the question of Jesus alleged Brothers and Sisters cannot be solved linguistically either. Protestants often argue that Adelphos is a word specific for blood brothers and Anepsios is a word specific to cousins and Sygennes indicates a relative. This simply is not born out in Scripture. In the Greek Septuagint, the Old Testament Bible Jesus and the Disciples most often quoted from, Adelphos is used in Genesis 14:14 and 1 Chronicles 23:21–22. In both cases, the person being described was in fact, not a brother but a cousin.

Anepsios is never used in the New Testament to identify a cousin. In fact, in it's lone New Testament usage (Colossians 4:10), it referred to Marcus' sister's son, a nephew, not a cousin.

In two perfect opportunities to use Anepsios as cousin (Luke 1:36 and 1:58), the word Sygennes is used instead.
So, the linguistic case for "brother" is not a solid one, by any stretch of the imagination.
Neither is the case for Joseph knowing Mary after She bore Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Till is translated from the Greek word Heos which states that an action has not taken place up to a certain point with no implication that it occurred after that point. (definition linked in the show notes). Many claim that this verse states that Joseph knew her after Jesus was born but they are inserting into the text what is not there. They do the same with the statement that Joseph took Mary as his wife.

  • 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
  • 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
  • 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")

Now let's get down to the brass tacks. John 19:25 is a verse that blows this all apart.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

Are we to believe that Mary's sister was also called Mary? No, Mary of Cleopas was Mary's sister-in-law and yet the Scripture uses the word Adelphe for sister.

Now cross reference with Matthew 27:56

56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

This proves that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary, the mother of James and Joseph were actually two different people. James and Joseph are called two of Jesus brothers.

Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
James and Joseph were called Jesus' brothers but they were actually His cousins. Mary the Mother of Jesus was called Mary's Sister but was actually her sister-in-law. Elizabeth is called Mary's relative but was her cousin. Marcus' sister's son is called a cousin but is really a nephew.

Finally, the clincher.

1 Corinthians 15:6 Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.
If verses like Matthew 13 prove that Jesus had brothers by virtue of the word Adelphos then we have a real problem because Adelphos is the word used in 1 Corinthians 15:6. Are we to believe that Jesus had 500 brothers? No.

There is a reason why we see no brothers or sisters when Jesus was found in the Temple at age 12. There is a reason why we see no brothers or sisters for Jesus to leave His mother in the care of. There is a reason why Mary is never called the Mother of anyone but Jesus, anywhere in Scripture.

The word Adelphos clearly cannot be constrained to full brothers because even other children of Joseph and Mary would not have been full brothers to Jesus because they would not have God as their Father.

Clearly, Adelphos includes half-brothers, step-brothers, cousins and even spiritual brothers. Therefore, it is illogical to automatically conclude that Jesus so-called brothers and sisters had to be children of Mary, especially in the complete absence of any evidence to support such a proposition.

It is truly puzzling to me that anyone would suggest that God would go so far as to preserve Mary's virginity by Divine action if He intended that action to be undone by a man. A man sharing the Holy womb that carried God. absurd. Remember Uzzah. Joseph wouldn't have even thought about it.

Closing Remarks

To read the show notes for this debate, please go to Also, to email us, send to
I have little doubt that some people approached tonight's debate thinking it would be a slam dunk for my opponent. To the undiscerning eye, the Bible does seem to indicate that Jesus had other brothers and sisters. That is until you come to understand the Scriptures long journey from aramaic to greek to latin to english and the many subtleties of language resulting from such a journey. When you examine the whole of Scripture in the context of language, typology and the early church Fathers, Mary's perpetual virginity is a matter beyond dispute.

It should be mentioned that many catholic doctrines concerning Mary use sources outside the Bible. This is not so strange. Many today use all manner of outside sources to help them understand Scripture. One of the documents we look to is written by James, the Apostle and writer of an Epistle. It is called the Proto-Evangelium (link in the show notes). Why the proto-evangelium did not make the canon of Scripture is an open question. However, it does give us many insights that are confirmed by Sacred Scripture.

Here is one example.

Matthew's Gospel tell us that Jesus is a descendant of the lineage of David by Joseph, the spouse of Mary. However, Paul's letter to the Romans says something different.

Jesus could not be descended from David, according to the flesh, if Mary were not also of the House of David. The Bible, nowhere makes this claim but the proto-evangelium does.

The proto-evangelium also states that Joseph was an elderly man, a widower, when He was betrothed to Mary and already had adult children. This would not only perfectly account for some of Jesus brothers and sisters but makes sense of the fact that Joseph is out of the picture somewhere between Jesus age of 12 and 30.

The proto-evangelium also states that Joseph was betrothed to Mary more as a caretaker in her young age than as a typical, conjugal marriage. This would certainly explain why Mary was astounded at the prospect that She would become pregnant.

These explanations are at direct opposition to much protestant thought but they are the only ones that make sense of the Scriptures. If it is so easy for some to believe that Jesus had half brothers without His real Father, why is it such a stretch to believe that He had step-brothers by His adoptive father? This explanation certainly makes more sense juxtaposed against the notion that Almighty God would share the womb of the Ark of the Covenant with a man, even a man as decent as Joseph.

Nevertheless, the assertion that Mary had other children is an affirmative claim, unproven even if the Proto-Evangelium is rejected.

In the end, my opponent has failed to demonstrate that Mary had other children because it cannot be demonstrated. It cannot be demonstrated because it flat out didn't happen.
Pope Saint Siricius, the first Pope to inherit a canonized Bible, put it so brilliantly;

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Amen. I cannot top that.

That Mary had no other children is clear by the Biblical record. That the early church understood this is clear by the historical record. Yet, this teaching is very hard for our current selfish, contraceptive culture. The idea that restraint is more valuable than indulgence and that there are places too holy for man to tread run counter to the current thought.

Catholic Priests are mocked for being celibate. But who are the people mocking? Are they mocking Jesus, whose example of celibacy they follow? Are they mocking Paul who pointed the same way? If Celibacy is unnatural, do we serve an unnatural Savior? For that is clearly the way He lived, so how can priests be attacked for following His lead? Paul, whose doctrines are allegedly so central to the development of protestant thought was a preeminent example of this expressly catholic mindset.

Is our world so cynical as to sneer at the notion that Mary, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, cradling God Himself in her arms, could resist the temptations of the flesh for God's higher purpose? Is it so outrageous to contemplate that righteous Joseph who was going to divorce Mary quietly rather than seek justice would not have the temperance, through God's grace to stay this holy course? Finally, if God intended Joseph to have sex with Mary, why on earth would He have gone through the trouble of impregnating her, Himself in such a miraculous way?

Is this really our objection, or is it that we have been so brain washed by our sex saturated, post Humanae Vitae culture as to be scandalized by the thought that Sex is not a need but a desire, against which a person of profound grace can bend against. Is it so hard to comprehend that a person can actually say no, for the greater love of God and holiness?

Isaiah 7 says the Virgin will be with child and bear a son.....not sons. Isaiah 9 says A Child is born to us...not children are born to us.

God's singular and miraculous action through Mary was not shared. Thank You.

Quotes from the fathers (Source:

The Protoevangelium of James
"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Pope Leo I
"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

George Lujack's opening statement

Opening Statement: A Discussion on Mary March 23, 2012
by George Lujack

Most of the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church are false and simply not biblically supported at all. Through human reasoning and a desire to keep Mary an “untouched vessel” of God, they cannot accept the fact that Mary engaged in sexual intercourse and had numerous children with her husband. Catholics cherish, praise and worship Mary as the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual Virgin, the queen of heaven, the co-redemptrix, and the Holy mother of God, though these titles are not bestowed upon her in Scripture.

Mary simply referred to herself as the maidservant of the Lord in Luke 1:38.

Jesus had no earthly biological father. This point is not in dispute. Jesus had no earthly biological mother. I repeat, Jesus had no earthly biological mother. Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary and Mary served as a surrogate mother for the Lord. Joseph and Mary served the Lord Jesus Christ as adoptive parents in servitude to the kingdom of God.

Jesus was born without the strain of original sin in Him. This is generally accepted as truth by Christians and Catholics alike, and I don’t think my opponent will dispute this. Being born without original sin poses a dilemma however…. How can Jesus have been born as a man through a woman and yet not inherit original sin as all men do?

There are only (2) known possibilities…

1. Jesus was born to a sinless Virgin Mary. Mary was sinless, having been immaculately conceived herself. Being without sin made it possible for Mary to be Christ’s biological mother.


2. Jesus was born to a highly favored, blessed and righteous Virgin who was a humble
maidservant to the Lord, who served as a surrogate birth mother and raised Jesus as her own child.

Catholicism follows possibility #1 by creating the perpetual virgin goddess Mary, a sinless woman who ascended to heaven and is now queen of heaven. There are so many flaws with Catholicism’s Mary, that she can never conform with Scripture and Catholics no longer even attempt to make their Mary do so. They will site tradition and other unbiblical Marion visions in order to justify their version of Mary.

Here are some basic problems with Catholicism’s Mary…

Jesus is the Immaculate Conception (a title that He does not go by, but I mean that in the descriptive sense). Jesus was immaculately conceived by the Holy Ghost into the Virgin Mary. If Mary was immaculately conceived and sinless, so that she could give birth to Christ as His biological mother - free from original sin, then Mary’s mother would also have had to have been immaculately conceived to bring forth a sinless Mary, And Mary’s grandmother would have had to have been immaculately conceived to bring forth Mary’s mother, and so forth. Mary would have had to have descended from a line of sinless descendants or immaculately conceived descendants. Catholicism does not address this paradox problem.

Scripture proves the Immaculate Conception sinless Mary is a not-so Immaculate-deception. The Marion apparitions proclaiming Mary to be the Immaculate Conception are satanic angels telling lies not found in Scripture. Scripture warns us to not follow spirits that preach another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) and that Satan appears as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The idea that Mary is born without sin is also unbiblical.

Romans 3:23 declares that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 5:21 & Hebrews 4:15 declare Jesus knew no sin.

Mary would not need a savior if she were without sin, yet
LUKE 1:47-48: proclaims…
And my spirit has rejoiced in God ‘my’ Savior.
For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant

Now the 2nd possibility of how Jesus was born into sinful humanity as a sinless being is that He was born to a highly favored, chosen blessed and righteous Virgin who, as a humble maidservant to the Lord, served as a surrogate birth mother and raised Jesus as her own child.

The surrogate mother Mary is both plausible and fits with Scripture. At the dawn of Catholic Christianity, some 2000 or so years ago, they were not able to understand that it was possible for a woman to serve as a surrogate mother. Modern science has proven that an already fertilized egg can be placed inside of a woman and that woman can serve as a surrogate mother, giving birth to a child that is not related to her. It is in this manner that God the Father, through His Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:35) and placed Christ inside of her to be born to her. The Holy Spirit did not fertilize Mary’s egg. Christ was born to Mary and had no blood relation to her.

Some will no doubt object, saying, how could Jesus not be a blood relative of Mary if He died for the sins of mankind? The answer is that Jesus was born as Adam was created, without sin. Jesus had to be born and had to live a perfect sinless life as a man, to qualify to be a sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind.

Scripture identifies Christ as Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, king of righteousness and king of peace in…

HEBREWS 7:1-3:
As 3without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

Now onto the birth of Christ…

Before we can determine whether or not Mary had other children, we should first clarify that Mary engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

MATTHEW 1:18 indicates Mary was found with child, before she and Joseph came together, implying that they eventually did come together through sexual intercourse.

MATTHEW 1:24-25:
24Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25AND DID NOT KNOW HER TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN SON. And he called His name Jesus.

Now what does Scripture mean when it says Joseph did not know Mary until she brought forth her firstborn Son?

Two points are evident here in Matthew 1:25.

Point 1:
Joseph obviously knew who Mary was… He was married to her. He was her betrothed husband. Scripture un-mistakenly points out that Joseph did not carnally know his wife, until after Jesus was born, and then he knew Mary intimately. After Jesus was born is when Joseph did know Mary through sexual intercourse.

The language that Scripture uses, that Joseph did not know Mary till after Jesus was born, refers to not knowing her through sexual intercourse. A biblical example of a man knowing his wife in reference to sexual intercourse:

GENESIS 4:1: XR with: GENESIS 4:17: GENESIS 4:25:
Now Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bore Cain…

If Mary remained a perpetual virgin after the birth of Christ, Scripture would have been clear in declaring this. Instead of Matthew 1:25 saying that Joseph did not know Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn Son, Matthew 1:25 would have said that Joseph did not know Mary “all the days of his life.”

There are numerous biblical examples of Scripture using the term “all the days of his life,” such as…

1 SAMUEL 7:15:
And Samuel judged Israel ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE.

Point 2.
Matthew 1:25 indicates Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORN Son. If Jesus were Mary’s ONLY Son, Scripture would have said so. This is obvious as Scripture declares that Jesus is God the Father’s ONLY begotten Son (John 1:18, 3:16, 3:18; Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9).

Jesus is NEVER described as the Father’s Firstborn Son. Jesus, being Mary’s firstborn Son indicates that she had other sons after Him.

Now as for Mary’s Children:

I’m sure I will hear the typical Catholic defense using language confusion, claiming that when Scripture refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, it is a mistranslation of the Greek language, then when that does not work out (as there is a Greek word for cousin and brother and sister), they go back even further to Aramaic. Language confusion is a tactic used to preserve the perpetual virgin status of Mary and they will never allow even the truth of Scripture to expose the fallacy of this core tenant of their faith.

MATTHEW 12:46-47; XR with MARK 31:32-33; LUKE 18:19-20:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

MATTHEW 13:55-56:
Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?

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 brothers.

Scripture is somewhat vague about the details of Jesus’ brothers and sisters lives, because the story of the gospel is not focused of the children of Joseph and Mary, but on the incredible life of Yeshua the Messiah / Jesus the Christ.

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show