Apostles younger than Jesus - Comments?

[JB_Brother_4446]

Explain Peter’s mother-in-law.

Did you read the article, prodomos?

It said since Peter was the only one with a mother-in-law, he could be over 20.

 

[thistle]

I just said why.

You are missing the point. I have looked at your threads and comments and you seem to focus on so many irrelevancies that have no impact on our faith and salvation.

WHY?

Focus on Christ and what his Church teaches on how to live your life. You would be better served doing that.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You are missing the point. I have looked at your threads and comments and you seem to focus on so many irrelevancies that have no impact on our faith and salvation.

WHY?

Focus on Christ and what his Church teaches on how to live your life. You would be better served doing that.

Seriously, thistle?

 

[prodromos]

Did you read the article, prodomos?

As I am not a member of that site I could only read a couple of pages which weren’t contiguous, so I didn’t waste my time.

It said since Peter was the only one with a mother-in-law, he could be over 20.

He could be over 40 too. Anyway, calling adults as children is a term of endearment which is very common in Greek and I imagine in other languages as well. I suspect the writers of the article are imposing their own cultural view onto the Gospel accounts and drawing erroneous conclusions as a result.

 

[Eliza10]

Seriously, thistle?

I think he is. I can’t argue with his conclusion. It does seem like you like to hangout on the fringe, vs. the essentials. And that makes me wonder why. I don’t really have any guesses, and when I asked, you really didn’t answer.

 

[Eliza10]

I said “might have”.

Did you even read the article?

But why? The article, written in 1917 by probably-not-Catholics Otis and Frank Cary, is introduced:

“This article is interesting if no other reason than that it is the work of father and son…”

That’s really not a good enough reason to be interesting, to me.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

But why? The article, written in 1917 by probably-not-Catholics Otis and Frank Cary, is introduced:

“This article is interesting if no other reason than that it is the work of father and son…”

That’s really not a good enough reason to be interesting, to me.

So you didn’t even assess it at all?

 

[Eliza10]

So you didn’t even assess it at all?

Nope.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Nope.

Wow!

 

[CB_Catholic]

You know why we shouldn’t concentrate on the fringe? Because it leads to heresy and schism. If you don’t believe me, study the history of Christianity. It’s ok to read interesting things and learn history and customs, etc., but to make unimportant details important enough to cause division or to misinterpret Scripture to suit one’s own agenda is dangerous. To try to make tangental things that aren’t even addressed in Scripture while downplaying true doctrine and Divine Revelation is foolish, and Jesus and St. Paul did warn against this.

Satisfy your curiosity, fine. Make something like the age of the Apostles an important matter in interpreting Scripture–no. It can mushroom into such things as cults, heresy, etc.

Listen to the Church. If it’s important, she has already addressed it.

 

[CB_Catholic]

As I said, it was important back then.

So was circumcision, but that has no bearing on Christianity now. That is not a well-thought argument.

Learn to be more discreet in your reading material and read from and take seriously reliable Catholic sources, lest you lose your way.

 

[Eliza10]

So was circumcision, but that has no bearing on Christianity now. That is not a well-thought argument.

Learn to be more discreet in your reading material and read from and take seriously reliable Catholic sources, lest you lose your way.

This is excellent advice.

 

[Eliza10]

You know why we shouldn’t concentrate on the fringe? Because it leads to heresy and schism. If you don’t believe me, study the history of Christianity. It’s ok to read interesting things and learn history and customs, etc., but to make unimportant details important enough to cause division or to misinterpret Scripture to suit one’s own agenda is dangerous. To try to make tangental things that aren’t even addressed in Scripture while downplaying true doctrine and Divine Revelation is foolish, and Jesus and St. Paul did warn against this.

Satisfy your curiosity, fine. Make something like the age of the Apostles an important matter in interpreting Scripture–no. It can mushroom into such things as cults, heresy, etc.

Listen to the Church. If it’s important, she has already addressed it.

Amen to this.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

So was circumcision, but that has no bearing on Christianity now. That is not a well-thought argument.

Learn to be more discreet in your reading material and read from and take seriously reliable Catholic sources, lest you lose your way.

And the judging comes in…

 

[CB_Catholic]

And the judging comes in…

And you have judged that I am judging you–now this could go on forever. It is possible to disagree and judge an action without judging a person, you know. We all make judgments about things. I will go no further with this silliness.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

And you have judged that I am judging you–now this could go on forever. It is possible to disagree and judge an action without judging a person, you know. We all make judgments about things. I will go no further with this silliness.

And neither will I.