A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[Roman_Catholic_1]

that intrigues me more than anything, because to be equal to any authority of God’s word; He would have to share that authority and give up some of His sovereignty and then the magesterium in effect would become "god

Really? Do you believe the Apostles were “gods”:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 16:18

Is the ability to “bind” in heaven an authority of God’s? Does him sharing that with Peter make him God in your opininion?

When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. Mat 9:8

Who were the “men” which were granted the authority? And if, like the Bible says, they had authority were they gods in your opinion?

Notice the threads always come down to those defending the Word of God and those defending the writing of men.

Actually MS since the Bible never says that Mary had other children you are not defending God’s written word here. You are at the very least defending the writings of men (you and your belief she had other children) against other writings of men (she didn’t have other children). For someone who, I am assuming, affirms Sola Scriptura it seems odd that you would be so insistent that Mary had other children. It not being in the Bible and all.

God bless you

 

[Nicea325]

**So now the Didache is the Word of God and carries the same authority of the Bible? **

And at what point the ‘Bible’ decide all on its own its the final authority?

And where and when did Jesus bind his entire teachings/actions to a Bible?

Where does Bible state the TRUTH is only binded to written words?

That is one of the grave errors of Protestanism: Assuming that Christians are a people of the book. WRONG!

Are you a Jew or Muslim?

I would like to know how the teachings of the magesterium and the Scripture became equal in the site of Catholics - that intrigues me more than anything, because to be equal to any authority of God’s word; He would have to share that authority and give up some of His sovereignty and then the magesterium in effect would become “god”; not just a representative because to be equal with His word, which is an extension of God Himself; like a finger is to a human. Then one would have to show that God gave that sovereignty and equality to the magisterium. Since Hebrews in effect removed the formal priesthood, and the Bible say God alone can forgive sins; yet that is the claim.

Then apparently you do a lot of reading,but lack in the comprehension department. And what intrigues me about non-Catholics is on earth do they come to the conclusion the Bible came BEFORE the church and that Jesus gave a collection of writings as our the final authority?

At what point they come up with this wild fantasy? The Bible came first and the church second? :whackadoo:

**“The priest is, indeed, another Christ, or in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ.” (Pope Pius XI, Encylical on the Priesthood) How is this reconciled to Matt 24? **

LOL! Apparently you lack the proper education or the background on how to properly cite sources without presenting false ideas,positions,etc. Nice one,but it would be nice if you would provide the entire encyclical instead of trying to produce a smoking gun. It is the oldest trick in the book. It is called “text-proofing” to prove an agenda.

Try again.

 

[elvisman]

So now the Didache is the Word of God and carries the same authority of the Bible? Someone decided to advise to say it 3 times a day and that proves oral traditions passed on by the writers of Scripture? Another huge leap for the Elvis-Man.

Which Apostles; Paul and Peter; especially Paul was continually warning and addressing FALSE teachings that infiltrated the church of Jesus. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an invention; how can we know this? It contradicts directly the Word of God and the very voice of Jesus. I choose to believe the God of the Christian Bible as opposed to men who wrote heresies as I see it.

Notice the threads always come down to those defending the Word of God and those defending the writing of men. Have you not seen the pattern? It exists in every apologetic and non-Catholic religions.

I would like to know how the teachings of the magesterium and the Scripture became equal in the site of Catholics - that intrigues me more than anything, because to be equal to any authority of God’s word; He would have to share that authority and give up some of His sovereignty and then the magesterium in effect would become “god”; not just a representative because to be equal with His word, which is an extension of God Himself; like a finger is to a human. Then one would have to show that God gave that sovereignty and equality to the magisterium. Since Hebrews in effect removed the formal priesthood, and the Bible say God alone can forgive sins; yet that is the claim.

“The priest is, indeed, another Christ, or in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ.” (Pope Pius XI, Encylical on the Priesthood) How is this reconciled to Matt 24?

You take Pius XI’s encyclical on the Priesthood out of context because because you simply don’t understand what "In Persona Christi" means.
**But, don’t worry. It’s just a typical neophyte anti-Catholic blunder. As **for Matt. 24 - nobody is calling the priest the Messiah. He is an extension of Jesus.

**As for why do we place Catholic Doctrines on par with Scripture? That’s EASY. ****Because the Scriptures themselves say we should. **
**You see - those who don’t understand the Scriptures can usually take one verse out of context, dissect it and come up with another meaning. **

Thank GOD, that He really wanted to drive the point home about Church Authority and Tradition:

2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Matt. 18:15-18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

2 Tim. 1:12-14
**On this account I am suffering these things; but I am not ashamed, for I know him in whom I have believed and am confident that he is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day. **
**Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. **
Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.

1 Tim. 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[adrift]

It always amazes me that there are those who believe that the womb of Mary who contained God would be contaminated by an ordinary human. The claim that another human came from that womb is unbelievable.

Mary asked the angel how could she have a child. She was a married woman who was in that part of the Jewish marriage where she was not yet living with her husband. To ask the angel how could this be is silly unless there would be a vow of virginity.

This is the only time that this word is used in the entire bible.
However in Gen 13:8 Abraham and Lot are described as brothers whereas they are uncle and nephew.
Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).
There are many places used in the bible where brother is used to mean other than a uterine brother.
Some points to be made.
The way that Jesus is spoken about by his “brothers” indicate those who are older than Jesus. Jesus was the first born so they cannot be Mary’s children. Mark 3:21
In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called THE son of Mary not A son of Mary. Nowhere are any of these “brothers” referred to as Mary’s sons. Some of these “brothers” list other women as their mothers.
St Jerome complained about Helvetius interpretation that Mary had other Children as being a new invention.

.

 

[adrift]

Only you cannot name one of those traditions with Biblical support; no one can because they already existed as the passage clearly indicates and there is no reason to believe that it is not part of the written word, otherwise why would the message change? Therefore the Church has to say traditions that were passed on orally and by the authority of the Church because there exists no Biblical support. It is a self proclaimed authority and circular reasoning. The only One that can make self proclaimed authority is God because He established His own authority as Creator of all things and gave it all to His Son “ALL Things”.

“Until they came together” - Gee I wonder who doesn’t know what that is alluding to; anyone with a veil of blindness, head in the sand, hands over their ears and even those know exactly what it alludes to, but can’t openly admit it even though in their heart of hearts they know exactly what it means, just as a large portion of Catholics openly admit, but that would mean be committing sin against an unnamed church authority as opposed to Someone else who I will not mention. So keep fooling yourselves, you are not fooling anyone else; you make yourselves look, well I can’t say that either. My 2 cents; can’t wait for the honest feedback that I know I will get. Some of you crack me up sometimes.

The Bible is tradition that was written down. There are others that were not. Peter asking to be crucified upside down is a tradition. Not all must be found in the Bible. Please give the verse that says it does. In fact, the Bible says the opposite. Jesus was with the Apostles forty days teaching them. Not one place will you find that Jesus asked that it be written. NO Jesus said go and teach not write.
“Until they came together” is what scripture? It is not what is said about Mary and Joseph.

He had no relations with her until she bore a son.

Of course it is referring to the fact that Mary was a virgin. However only a person with blinders cannot admit that what it doesn’t say is that they ever had relations. That was not the intent of the scripture. See above for the witness scripture gives that she remained a virgin. Her question to the angel has never been answered with any logic.

ditto

which Apostles?

Note all you want, but note this as well, my love and reverence for the Word of God is the positive way to look at it as opposed to your preconceived negative way of looking at it. Your disdain for my beliefs should also be in your notations; since you claim to have a fair and open mind to learning; so we will see if you live by your own verbal convictions, but I’m not holding my breath.

Your handling of Scripture is not reverent. You cannot acknowledge your bias. Nor can you acknowledge your own disdain for our beliefs.

So now you have access to the original manuscripts; can you tell the rest of the world 1) that you have them and 2) make them available…LOL The point is you made a claim that is ridiculous and cannot be shown; I’m sure Matthew was written in quite a few languages; but to make the claim of knowing the “original language” is so funny. Pay attention to detail.

We know what language Jesus spoke. We know the language that the bible was first written. The language has not disappeared. Since you missed the point perhaps I can explain. The Scriptures of Jesus were given by the Apostles. These men did not speak Greek. They had no way of distinguishing their cousins, aunts, and uncles. They were just called brothers. Now that is a fact that if you can dispute with evidence have at it. Now since there was no word in Aramaic, and they are conveying information they are limited in conveying information in their own language. Do you speak another language? If you do then you know how hard it is to translate directly from one language to another.

Which Apostles; Paul and Peter; especially Paul was continually warning and addressing FALSE teachings that infiltrated the church of Jesus. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an invention; how can we know this? It contradicts directly the Word of God and the very voice of Jesus. I choose to believe the God of the Christian Bible as opposed to men who wrote heresies as I see it.

It supports the Word of God. It is a false teaching that she was not a perpetual virgin. It is an affront to God to think that the womb He grew in would be touched by a sinful human.
Mary says she was a perpetual virgin
“I know not man”
There is nowhere that anyone else said to be the child of Mary.
Jesus is said to be “the” son of Mary not “a” son of Mary.

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself.

Would have been unthinkable to do to the head of the family to an older sibling. Jesus would have to have been younger.

3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him

Who was the mother of James and Joses

among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

John identifies their mother as Mary wife Clopas.

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

26

For Jesus to give the care of His mother and not to His brother would have been a great insult. The only reason that He would have done so is that He was an only child.
This is what Scripture reveals but the tradition of man reject it for favor of a flawed interpretation.

 

[Dokimas]

Hmmmm . . . Michal was only one example.
Funny how you didn’t address the other two verses I gave you:
Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’

Jesus stop sitting at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?
I actually had one Protestant who told me that he probably would!

Is Jesus going to remain sitting forever?​

BTW, you didn’t comment on my verse!!!

Here’s some more …

Mt 5:26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till <2193> you have paid the last penny. As Mary stayed a virgin, so this person would have to stay in jail even after the last penny was paid, according to your logic.

Mt 18:30 "And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till <2193> he should pay the debt. Same comment.

Mt 10:11 "Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till <2193> you go out. I guess they stayed forever.

Mt 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until <2193> the Son of Man is risen from the dead.” Where they NEVER to tell of the vision? They were disobedient if not.

Mt 18:34 "And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until <2193> he should pay all that was due to him. ** Is the poor guy still being tortured**? Of course not.

Mt 23:39 “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till <2193> you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’” Did they ever see Jesus again?

Mt 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until <2193> that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Jesus answers it for us – No drink; Father’s Kingdom; Drinks.

 

[Dokimas]

You are talking about the meaning of the word until.
Until as used in each of the examples given you mean that the action happened until a certain point but does not say what happens after that point. You are making a distinction that does not exist.

You mentioned the Greek.

I found this for the usage of Acts 2:34-35 and Mt 2:13
The until in the verses I gave you is the same word used in the versus you have quoted.
heos {heh’-oce} of uncertain affinity
This word is the Greek word used for both Matt 1:25 and Samuel 6:23
3739 hos {hos} including feminine he {hay}, and neuter ho {ho} probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588);; pron 1) who, which, what, that ++++ Wigram’s count is 1309 not 1393.

So your argument that apples are being compared to apples falls apart.

Mr 6:10 Also He said to them, "In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till <2193> you depart from that place. Self explanitory: a change takes place after ‘till’.

Lu 15:4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until <2193> he finds it?
Did he keep going after the lost sheep even after he found it? He’d have to if you use the same logic that Mary stayed a virgin.

Ac 23:12 And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till <2193> they had killed Paul.
Were they intending to never eat or drink? Actually this is an interesting passage for another discussion at another time.

Jas 5:7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until <2193> the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until <2193> it receives the early and latter rain. Does the farmer wait for the rain even after it comes? Of course not — same logic, IMO.

 

[adrift]

Dokimas

The webster definition is
2 —used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time

It says NOTHING about what happens after that specified time. That is true of each and every example you have used.

You stated

Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until <same Greek word as in Matt 1:25> I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

I pointed out to you that it is a different Greek word but that the Greek word used in both
Matt 1:25 and Samuel 6:23 was the same.

Lets take the above scripture. The specified time is to remain in Egypt. How long? The Angel would bring word. It says NOTHING about what would happen then. Only that they should remain in Egypt. Until only denotes a specific time for an occurrence.

Mr 6:10 Period of time

Lu 15:4 Period of time

Ac 23:12 period of time.

Jas 5:7 period of time
Mt 5:26period of time
Mt 18:30 "period of time
Mt 10:11 period of time

Mt 17:9 period of time

Mt 18:34 period of time

Mt 23:39 "period of time

Mt 26:29 "period of time
What you are not understanding it not that these things continue but they only designate a particular period of time WITHOUT stating what will happen after.
Until does not mean what you want it to mean.
So no matter how many versus you quote or ignore it still mean up to a certain point it is true but it doesn’t say what will happen after that point.
You have failed to comment on the rest of what I posted.
You put all the Scripture together while remembering the customs of the day and it becomes obvious that Jesus was an only child.

 

[elvisman]

Is Jesus going to remain sitting forever?

He is in the Eternal Now. With God there is no time (1 Pet. 3:8) and he is ETERNALLY present with the Father.

BTW, you didn’t comment on my verse!!!

**I didn’t comment because it was - well, the nicest way I can pout it is, REALLY silly. All you did was talk about how "until" is also used in the normal way, meaning that something will happen ****after ****the fact. **
This in NO WAY negates the other usage regarding the verses I gave you **(Acts 2:34-35, Psalm 110:1, 2 Samuel 6:23).

 

[elvisman]

Mt 5:26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. As Mary stayed a virgin, so this person would have to stay in jail even after the last penny was paid, according to your logic.

Mt 18:30 "And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. Same comment.

Mt 10:11 "Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. I guess they stayed forever.

Mt 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.” Where they NEVER to tell of the vision? They were disobedient if not.

Mt 18:34 "And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. Is the poor guy still being tortured? Of course not.

Mt 23:39 “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’” Did they ever see Jesus again?

Mt 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Jesus answers it for us – No drink; Father’s Kingdom; Drinks.

Wow**, Doki.**
All I can say is . . . WOW.

**This is the *****best *****you can do? Showing verses that illustrate the ****other ****usage of "until"?? Nody said that it only had one single usage. That is ****PRECISELY **my point - that is DOES have other uses.

**You *****haven’t *****proven that Mary had other children. It simply doesn’t say this in Scripture - ANYWHERE. **While you’re at it - chew on tis one:
Deut. 34:6 tells us that nobody knew the location of Moses’ grave “until this present day”. Did they find it AFTER? Not according to the Scriptures . . .

We’re getting close to 1000 posts and not one, single Protestant (except for you, but that was hardly an answer) has been able to answer EITHER of the 2 challenges I’ve made on this thread:
1. Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported it but practiced it?

*2. ***PLEASE show me where it says that she was the mother of anybody else other than Jesus and I will leave the Catholic Church today - I PROMISE.

 

[rev_kevin]

It is good that you are so dedicated to this type of study.

One must bear in mind that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, which has no word to distinguish cousin, stepsibling, half sibiling, etc.

Do you know where I can find it?
I and Elvisman found one word each.

 

[adrift]

Acts 2:

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized,  every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

39
For **the promise **is made to you and **to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call."
40

It doesn’t say that this promise is made when the children are old enough. The promise is made to them then right then when they are baptized along with their children.

As for the brothers and sister of Jesus, this article will explain what we have been trying to say. Link

 

[rev_kevin]

Elvisman
In post 837 I asked you if you could give me a site/link of the Koine Greek meaning of the word, Adephos. Be a gentle man and provide me with them.
Also since Adelphos has more then one meaning and one being blood brothers it is very plausible,if not very likely,that Jesus had infant brothers and sisters from the same mother since there are many meanings of the word.

 

[rev_kevin]

Acts 2:

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized,  every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

39
For **the promise **is made to you and **to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call."
40
Lets go one verse before and one after. Acts 2:38-41, “Peter replied, ‘Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gife of the Holy Spirit. This promis is to you and your children, and even the Gentiles–all who have been called by the Lord our God.’ Then Peter contuinued preaching for a long time, strongly urging all his listeners, save yourselvesfrom this generation tha thas gone astrayThose who believedwhat Peter said were baptized and added to the church–about 3000 in all.”
It doesn’t say that this promise is made when the children are old enough. The promise is made to them then right then when they are baptized along with their children.

As for the brothers and sister of Jesus, this article will explain what we have been trying to say. Link

In these 4 verses we see the following: turn from your sins and turn to God save yourselves those who believe…were baptized. then in verse 42 it says, They joined with the other believers… can a infant do any of these things?

Then this promise is for you and your children…How long did it take Moses and the people of Israel to reach the land that God had promised them? 40 years.
Acts 26:6 "Now I am on trial because I am looking forward to the fulfillment of God’s promise made to our ancestors. The promise hadn’t happened yet.
When God promised Abraham that he would become the father of many nations, did it happen right away? NO.
Then we have this in Hebrews 7, "you will follow the example of those who are going to inherit God’s promises because of their faith and patience. Are they going to get this promise right away, NO

 

[Dancelittleewok]

So now the Didache is the Word of God and carries the same authority of the Bible? Someone decided to advise to say it 3 times a day and that proves oral traditions passed on by the writers of Scripture? Another huge leap for the Elvis-Man.

No, Sacred Tradition is the oral transmission what came down from the original Apostles, the some of same ones whom wrote Sacred Scripture.

Which Apostles; Paul and Peter; especially Paul was continually warning and addressing FALSE teachings that infiltrated the church of Jesus. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an invention; how can we know this? It contradicts directly the Word of God and the very voice of Jesus. I choose to believe the God of the Christian Bible as opposed to men who wrote heresies as I see it.

Another red-herring. Catholics believe in the same God as you. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Since you bring up "Catholic intervention"claim, please see this link. You’re better off hearing what Catholics believe from us than Lorraine Boettner.

Notice the threads always come down to those defending the Word of God and those defending the writing of men. Have you not seen the pattern? It exists in every apologetic and non-Catholic religions.

Have you not noticed that the Catholics are defending their beliefs with the Bible and witness of those whom lived at the same as the Apostles? You’re creating a false dichotomy.

I would like to know how the teachings of the magesterium and the Scripture became equal in the site of Catholics - that intrigues me more than anything, because to be equal to any authority of God’s word; He would have to share that authority and give up some of His sovereignty and then the magesterium in effect would become “god”; not just a representative because to be equal with His word, which is an extension of God Himself; like a finger is to a human. Then one would have to show that God gave that sovereignty and equality to the magisterium. Since Hebrews in effect removed the formal priesthood, and the Bible say God alone can forgive sins; yet that is the claim.

More red-herrings. God has made us “partakers of the divine nature” (2nd Peter 1:4) and in the image of Himself (see Genesis). God has already shared of Himself with us. Catholics are confessing their sins to God via a priest whom a representative of the Church and acting persona Christi. Please pick a subject and stick to it: there’s no need to bring up Confession while we are speaking about baptism.

“The priest is, indeed, another Christ, or in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ.” (Pope Pius XI, Encylical on the Priesthood) How is this reconciled to Matt 24?

As required by forum rules, please cite all quotes. Since there’s an insinuation that the priests are trying to replace Christ, here’s the whole quote from Ad Catholici Sacerdotii:

1. The Apostle of the Gentiles thus perfectly sums up what may be said of the greatness, the dignity and the duty of the Christian priesthood: Sic nos existimet homo Ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei - “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” The priest is the minister of Christ, an instrument, that is to say, in the hands of the Divine Redeemer. He continues the work of the redemption in all its world-embracing universality and divine efficacy, that work that wrought so marvelous a transformation in the world. Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed “another Christ”; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you,” is spoken to the priest, and hence the priest, like Christ, continues to give "glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will.
2. For, in the first place, as the Council of Trent teaches, Jesus Christ at the Last Supper instituted the sacrifice and the priesthood of the New Covenant: "our Lord and God, although once and for all, by means of His death on the altar of the cross, He was to offer Himself to God the Father, that thereon He might accomplish eternal Redemption; yet because death was not to put an end to his priesthood, at the Last Supper, the same night in which He was betrayed in order to leave to His beloved spouse the Church, a sacrifice which should be visible (as the nature of man requires), which should represent that bloody sacrifice, once and for all to be completed on the cross, which should perpetuate His memory to the end of time, and which should apply its saving power unto the remission of sins we daily commit, showing Himself made a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered to God the Father, under the appearance of bread and wine, His Body and Blood, giving them to the apostles (whom He was then making priests of the New Covenant) to be consumed under the signs of these same things, and commanded the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood to offer them, by the words ‘Do this in commemoration of Me.’ "

I’d for one would like a response to this post.

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman
In post 837 I asked you if you could give me a site/link of the Koine Greek meaning of the word, Adephos. Be a gentle man and provide me with them.
Also since Adelphos has more then one meaning and one being blood brothers it is very plausible,if not very likely,that Jesus had infant brothers and sisters from the same mother since there are many meanings of the word.

Kevin - I’ll try to find you a site.

I have many documents that I have compiled over the years as an amateur apologist and some of them are gleaned from various websites. However - I don’t think this particular document was from the internet.
Give me some time and I’ll find you one.

That being said - and the fact that there are many more definitions of “Adelphos” than uterine brothers - your statement that is is “very plausible” and “likely” that Jesus DID have uterine brothers is laughable.

Why doesn’t Scripture go out of its way to say this? Why doesn’t the Bible tell us that Mary had other children? Where were they at the Wedding at Cana?

**I have two major challenges on this post which you have not yet addressed. I have asserted that no Protestant can without plain and simple denial (which is what Dokimas did). Here they are again for the umteenth time:

1. Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported it but practiced it?

*2. ***PLEASE show me where it says that she was the mother of anybody else other than Jesus and I will leave the Catholic Church today - I PROMISE.

After you answer these challenges - I will give you a source for the Koine Greek of Adelphos, to be fair.

 

[rev_kevin]

Kevin - I’ll try to find you a site.

I have many documents that I have compiled over the years as an amateur apologist and some of them are gleaned from various websites. However - I don’t think this particular document was from the internet.
Give me some time and I’ll find you one.

That being said - and the fact that there are many more definitions of “Adelphos” than uterine brothers - your statement that is is “very plausible” and “likely” that Jesus DID have uterine brothers is laughable.Why is is laughable? If the word has many meanings and blood brothers is one of the meanings, it could mean that Jesus has siblings.

Why doesn’t Scripture go out of its way to say this? Why doesn’t the Bible tell us that Mary had other children? Where were they at the Wedding at Cana? Why doesn’t Scritpure go oout of its way and say you need to baptize infants?

I have two major challenges on this post which you have not yet addressed. I have asserted that no Protestant can without plain and simple denial (which is what Dokimas did). Here they are *again *for the umteenth time:

1. Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported it but practiced it?

*2. ***PLEASE show me where it says that she was the mother of anybody else other than Jesus and I will leave the Catholic Church today - I PROMISE.
No matteer what we answer we will be wrong.

After you answer these challenges - I will give you a source for the Koine Greek of Adelphos, to be fair.

So I have to answer your challenges inorder for you to help me with the Koine Greek word of Adephos, not Adelphos. That makes me believe that you don’t have the Koine Greek meaning. What kind of man would put a stipulation on helping someone to learn. Do you always put stipulations on things? You can’t be a gentleman and help with the meaning without stipulations? You say we don’t know things and we need to educate ourselves so we won’t be ignorante of Scripture, then when asked for help you put stipulations on it. Sorry but that is pretty sad.

 

[guanophore]

What is it to sin? To willfully go against God’s commandments.

This is the definition of a mortal sin.

There are also wrongs that are unintentional.

Are babies/mentally challenged/those unable to control their actions accountable for something they cannot control?

No. They are born into sin by virtue of being children of Adam. They come into this world under the sentence of death.

 Oh, there will be baptizing of all nations, when the freewill of a person wants to follow God's word(Implications of wanting to be saved and understanding what God has done for man and what He is to man).

Really? Did you read this in your bible? am especially interested in the implicsations part.

I understand the Bible doesn't speak in specifics about mentally challenged and babies, but it is implied.

Really? Where is that?

You have a choice to follow God or not, to be baptized is to understand that you have made a choice to follow God(to abide by his commandments).

This is certainly the case for any adult wanting baptism.

You ask an infant why he wants to follow Jesus’ example. What if a pregnant mother died along with the unborn child in a car wreck? Will the baby go to hell?

We entrust such infants to the mercy of God, who desires all to be saved.

Oh, you answer the mother had the intention for her child to be baptized, it’s not the mother’s choice. It’s the baby’s choice to be baptized. All in respectable sayings, I hope I didn’t offend much.

Why does the mother not have this choice? How come they parents are authorized to to choose everything else for their infant, but not eternity?

But thanks for my thoughts, I don’t mean to argue, just letting in some light on the perspective.

Thanks.

You are welcome for your thoughts.

 

[guanophore]

Show me in the bible the word…car, computer, etc. Trinity is the word we use to define the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

The difference is that the Trinity is part of the Apostolic teaching, as is the hypostatic union. These are things that Christians believe but you can’t find these words in Scripture. They are part of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

So I have to answer your challenges inorder for you to help me with the Koine Greek word of Adephos, not Adelphos. That makes me believe that you don’t have the Koine Greek meaning. What kind of man would put a stipulation on helping someone to learn. Do you always put stipulations on things? You can’t be a gentleman and help with the meaning without stipulations? You say we don’t know things and we need to educate ourselves so we won’t be ignorante of Scripture, then when asked for help you put stipulations on it. Sorry but that is pretty sad.

I agree… It is sad that you have not answered the challenge on infant baptism and keep tap dancing around this. Please stick to what this thread is about. How about rev… answer the challenge or move on to another thread.

Matthew