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

[Dokimas]

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.

Not to mention Elvis either contradicted himself on the issue or L _ _ _, IMO.

 

[guanophore]

While I am in agreement with you here, I’d say that the Church is a denomination is a sense that we are here in the name of Jesus!

Yes, of course! However, the modern American implication of this word is that the Catholic church is just one more of the plethora of Christian communities, on par with all those who created their own ecclesial structures.

 

[guanophore]

Correct, no negation on my part. I know I don’t have to remind you that it’s context, context, context.

I agree. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. There is nothing in the NT that is contrary to the Catholic faith, because the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics.

If the sentence said, ‘June did not have sex with her husband until her first child was born’, what would you conclude after the baby was born?

You are right that my conclusions would be based upon the context. Since the Apostles taught that Jesus was the only child of Mary, then my conclusions about the verse must be made within that context.

 

[guanophore]

- I still think it's more probable she did have those children mentioned and the Bible isn't real clear on the issue.

How do you dispense with the biblical evidence that those are children of the “other” Mary, who is described as the sister of the Mother of our Lord?

  As for you leaving the CC, that is not nor was it ever my goal.  I would want each of us to be honest with ourselves and embrace Jesus only and to be thankful to Him that He lead us to the churches we are in, for His purposes, understanding they are **NOT** perfect.  I do **NOT** want you to leave the CC if that's the place you are drawn closer to Jesus and to fellow Christians.

That is just it, though. Jesus is never “alone”. he created His Body, the Church, to be His perfect Bride. He perfected Her for Himself. He cannot have a bride that is tained by sin.

Anyone who has Christ as Head is a member of His One Body, the Church. This “Jesus alone” mentality is totally foreign to the Apostles, who taught that we automatically become members one of another when we are baptized into Him.

 

[elvisman]

Nice try but no cigar.

So . . . what does that mean?**
**That you’re going to continue to engage in non-sequitors or that you are going to at least attempt to have an intelligent conversation on the matter?

 

[elvisman]

What the word Adephos meand in Kione Greek. I went on several sites of the Kione Greek and it puts me to the word Adelphos. I want to know the real meaning of the word. It may not be important to you but it is to me. See I was told that the meaning of the word Adephos does not mean a connective particle, and delphus (the womb) a brother. I was told that it means what the word Adelphos means. So I want to know the true meaning of the word.

Here is one Greek site I found that defines the word Adelphos:

net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gal&chapter=1&verse=19

Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Adelphos
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother 2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman 3) any fellow or man 4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection 5) an associate in employment or office 6) brethren in Christ 6a) his brothers by blood 6b) all men 6c) apostles 6d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

---

NOW** – to be fair – you must address my 2 challenges, which you have avoided at all costs, so far:**

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. PLEASEshow 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.

 

[elvisman]

Correct, no negation on my part. I know I don’t have to remind you that it’s context, context, context.

If the sentence said, ‘June did not have sex with her husband until her first child was born’, what would you conclude after the baby was born?

No - not if I was using Biblical language. Exodus 15:8 says that God parted the red sea with a blast of his nostrils. Does God have nostrils? God is spirit - NOT corporeal.

**I have shown you passage after passage using the word, *“until” *that ****didn’t **necessitate a following action (Deut. 34:6, Psalm 110:1, 2 Samuel 6:23, Acts 2:34-35), and you have flat-out refused to address them because you CAN’T.

 

[elvisman]

I commented that I wasn’t trying to prove Mary had more children, even though I think it’s quite possible. I’ve looked at the evidence from you and others that she did not have more children and while it makes one think a bit, I still think it’s more probable she did have those children mentioned and the Bible isn’t real clear on the issue.

**I and others have provided ample proof that Mary had no other Children.

We have also provided ample proof of Infant Baptism, using Scripture and logic (entire households being baptized) as well as testimonies from the Early Church Fathers.

All your side had offered is arrogance and spiritual pride. You are ALL ready and willing to stand on the shoulders of the ECFs and inherit the faith Scriptures from the Early church - but so willing to reject what they had to say when it comes in conflict with your aberrant belief systems.
Shame on you.

As for you leaving the CC, that is not nor was it ever my goal. I would want each of us to be honest with ourselves and embrace Jesus only and to be thankful to Him that He lead us to the churches we are in, for His purposes, understanding they are NOT perfect. I do NOT want you to leave the CC if that’s the place you are drawn closer to Jesus and to fellow Christians.

**God is the head of only ONE Church. The rest are founded and headed by mere rebellious, spiritually prideful MEN.
**

 

[elvisman]

Not to mention Elvis either contradicted himself on the issue or L _ _ _, IMO.

Put your accusations where your mouth is and tell me where I contradicted myself.

Always willing to hurl out false accusations but you can NEVER back them up - eh, Doki?

 

[Masters_Servant]

I’m thankful that you are really searching for the meaning of words. It certainly does help to understand what was being said. However, proof texting is no way to prove anything. It can help to know scripture, but to use it out of context is just as wrong. If find it humorous now that I ever doubted infant baptism. I was also raised Protestant and know the arguments against, but realized as I learned more and more the problem with approaching scripture this way.

Good topic though.

So where does God say infant Baptism removes original sin or any sin? It doesn’t. It does tell us how sin is removed and the only way it is removed, which a natural and unregenerate person is unable to understand according to God.

Also, God tells us why people go to hell; for rejecting the revelation God has given them and in a country like ours, that would be rejecting the gospel of salvation, which is Jesus Christ. Therefore, since an infant, or mentally challenged adult does not have the ability to reject, then they would not be in hell; if they are not in hell then they are where? The Church use to teach an unbaptized infant was in “limbo”, not they changed that teaching and believe they could be in heaven. Of course studying the Word of God and learning via the HS; it is obvious that infant Baptism does nothing in the sight of God, nothing. Just as regular water baptism does not remove sin nor taught in Scripture as such.

 

[Dokimas]

I agree. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. There is nothing in the NT that is contrary to the Catholic faith, because the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics.

You are right that my conclusions would be based upon the context. Since the Apostles taught that Jesus was the only child of Mary, then my conclusions about the verse must be made within that context.

Your first comment is a reason why I could not become a catholic.​

The ‘argument’ I was making had NOTHING to do with whether or not Mary had other children. It was only about whether or not she was perpetually a virgin.

 

[Dokimas]

How do you dispense with the biblical evidence that those are children of the “other” Mary, who is described as the sister of the Mother of our Lord?

That is just it, though. Jesus is never “alone”. he created His Body, the Church, to be His perfect Bride. He perfected Her for Himself. He cannot have a bride that is tained by sin.

Anyone who has Christ as Head is a member of His One Body, the Church. This “Jesus alone” mentality is totally foreign to the Apostles, who taught that we automatically become members one of another when we are baptized into Him.

What children? What Mary?​

I never said Jesus was alone. He makes His bride without spot. We are without spot on our own. The church isn’t without spot on its own. Only by the Blood of Jesus is the spots cleansed.

 

[Dokimas]

**That you’re going to continue **to engage in non-sequitors or that you are going to at least *attempt *to have an intelligent conversation on the matter?

-+
For me to have an intelligent conversation is oxymoronic.

 

[Dokimas]

So . . . what does that** mean?

What it means is that you tried but you didn’t do what you think you did.

 

[Dokimas]

No - not if I was using Biblical language. Exodus 15:8 says that God parted the red sea with a blast of his nostrils. Does God have nostrils? God is spirit - NOT corporeal.

**I have shown you passage after passage using the word, *“until” ***that **didn’t **necessitate a following action (Deut. 34:6, Psalm 110:1, 2 Samuel 6:23, Acts 2:34-35), and you have flat-out refused to address them because you CAN’T.

Your’s weren’t ‘apples with apples’ so not comment needed. You have NOT dealt with mine which are ‘apples with apples’, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

**I and others have provided *ample ***proof that Mary had no other Children.

We have also provided ample proof of Infant Baptism, using Scripture and logic (entire households being baptized) as well as testimonies from the Early Church Fathers.

All your side had offered is arrogance and spiritual pride. You are ALL ready and willing to stand on the shoulders of the ECFs and inherit the faith Scriptures from the Early church - but so willing to reject what they had to say when it comes in conflict with your aberrant belief systems.
Shame on you.

God is the head of only ONE Church. The rest are founded and headed by mere rebellious, spiritually prideful MEN.

So what if it’s not clear whether or not Mary had other children; So what?​

You have NOT proven anything with 'household’s being baptized. How many households were baptized in the NT out of the thousand and thousands of adults that were baptized? Very SMALL odds that you are correct. MUCH greater odds that I’m correct. Of course, God will do what He’ll do and He doesn’t care about the odds.​

You calling anyone arrogant is like the an ape calling a dog hairy. The rest of your comments don’t get commented on. They are silly remarks, not to mention judgemental.

 

[Dokimas]

Put your accusations where your mouth is and tell me where I contradicted myself.

Always willing to hurl out false accusations but you can NEVER back them up - eh, Doki?

Simple:

At the very beginning of your post you said you WOULD send a link.

Later in the same post you said you would if Kev answered you first.

 

[Dokimas]

Kevin - I’ll try to find you a site. Statement #1

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. Statement #2

Here’s your evidence from YOUR own post. Note the purple shows the contradictory statement.

 

[elvisman]

Simple:

At the very beginning of your post you said you WOULD send a link.

Later in the same post you said you would if Kev answered you first.

**And I DID post a link. ****I told him that I was trying to find one - and that in the mean time, he should answer my questions. I asked mine long before he asked for a link.

So, you see - your falsely-accusing anti-Catholicism is rearing it’s ugly head once again . . .

 

[elvisman]

-+
For me to have an intelligent conversation is oxymoronic.

At least we agree on something!