Baptism of babies & infants

[rinnie]

Hi rinnie, thanks for your reply. I suggest that you read what I wrote to plicado on post 537 and you tell me which of the three popes were infallible? Also I suggest that you read The Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J.N.D. Kelly avaliable in any Public library or Barnes and Noble. That may answer your question why a pope can’t. Why do you read the Bible if you can’t interpret what it says? ED O.

Thats easy Ed they all were. Jesus promised. So are all Bishops in communion with eachtother. They teach the message of Christ infallibly even when they are dispersed around the world provided that while maintaining the bond of unity amoung themselves and with peters succesor and while teaching authenticallly on a matter of faith and morals they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.

Now did I say they were infallible in all things. No I did Not. I said when it comes to the teaching of Christ.

Let me throw out the scripture to you also. The body of the faithful as a whole anointed as they are by the Holy Spirit 1 John 2"20-27 cannot err in matters of belief (LG12)

Now could you show me one teaching in matter of belief that they have misled me?

We read the bible for many reasons. Mine for example is a way that God can talk to me, just me and have a one on one with him. Why Ed do you seem to think that just because a Catholic does not claim to have the Power of the HS to interpret we do not study and learn from our Father and then read it and pray on it. (MANY PROTESTANTS ACCUSE U S OF THIS BY THE WAY)

What you fail to realize Ed that in a Catholic Church you have 3 readings EVERY Sunday. Usually its how the OT ties into the NT. But then Father gives his homily. What that is for many People ED is Bible Study. Why because Father explains those scriptures. Then as a Catholic you go home for the week. re-read those scriptures usually the OT and NT and see for yourself how they tie in together. Then you realize how you can never understand the NT without the OT and how Oral teachings are so important. You get all of that EVERY SUNDAY in a Catholic Church. THe whole ball of wax as they say. But that is why I read the bible to re-read what I have just been taught and really let it sink in.

Now Ed let me ask you a question, Why do you read the bible if you think you can interpret what it says and you cannot. What are you learning? what you see. Because God says man see’s the world the way man sees it not God. Now do you want to see what you see or what God wants you to see? Do you want to learn from the Apostles successors. Who have had the truth handed down. Or do you want to teach your truth, and not care what God wanted the Apostles to tell us?

 

[rinnie]

Hi Placido, thanks for your reply.------Line (1) Only the BIBLE is infallible. Pope Gregory XII , Benedict XIII and Alexander V. All three claim to be the real pope at the same time… Each excommunicated each other. All three were later deposed by the Council of Constance. Then later, only Gregory XII of the three reappeared on the official lists as a legitimate pope, yet he was deposed by the Council of Constance. The papal infallibility was established at First Vatican Council in 1870. Public information any library. Infallibility; why did it take so long?------Line (2) Forget it -------Line (3)Yes, baptism is in God’s word but it’s what Bible and pope Peter teaches about it. Read it. It’s in plain English easy to understand.----------Line (4) Another example of your TWISTING . Here you are mixing apples with oranges. Pledging to turn to God (good conscience repenting) is not pledging to obey all of what God commands us. He never commands us to turn to Him ------Line (5) I have to admire you. You can TWIST meanings, Scripture and whatever to suit your own theology. You’re a master at it. Doing something in God’s name Mat 28: 19, is not the same as calling on God’s name Rom 10:13.------(6) Here’s another SHIFTY tactics you try to use. Because Rom 10:13 mentions only the calling of his name, you TWIST again by accusing me of either/or. Or what? Did I every say only baptism saves you? NO! That’s your theology. You then tell me it’s both calling on His name and baptism. I very much know that not by what someone told me incorrectly what Jh 3:5 means but what I can plainly read and understand from Mark 16:16 and Jh 3:5. However; If I got into an accident and called on Jesus name to save me but died before I had a chance to be baptized, I would still be saved but you can’t reverse the order and be saved. Baptizing a person and doing it in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit is not the calling on the name to be saved. Calling and doing are two different things. ______ (7,8 & 9 other lines ) are dealt with elsewhere. ED O.

Now Ed please show me again one teaching that was taught in the RCC that was not the true word of God. Thanks Ed

 

[rinnie]

Here is something else that may surprise you Ed. Did you know that the Pope goes to confession Every day. Why Ed would he do that if he was perfect.

Why would Priests go to eachother and confess theirs sins if they were perfect.

Did Jesus make the Apostles without sin Ed. I think Not. God never took away free will. If God took away free will when you became a Apostle and you became sinless would Judas have done what he did. Heck no.

Jesus warned us about evil. He told us the devil can hide in his clothes. Do you think I am going to deny that Good men have fell from Grace. I will not. Many good priests have fallen from Grace. The devil got to them. I hate it too. God hates it more. But Jesus never promised us that the devil would not try to tear down his Church. He just promised us he would not succeed. History has showed time after time the attempts. There will be many more too. But they will be exposed and Jesus will not let his Church fall.

Again look at Judas. People will say why would God allow bad Priests. etc. I don’t know. Why did he allow Judas? I don’t know. Only God knows everything. But there are good Priests and wonderful Popes too Ed.

Like you had a bad Apostle, there will be Priest and Popes in history that can fall from Grace. But look at it this way 12 Apostles one went bad. I say we got the odds in our favor. I myself would rather concentrate on the work of the other 11 and not on the work on 1 bad Judas. How about you Ed. What would you rather do?

Remember Ed, God knew that some Popes would fall into sin. But he did allow them the free will to choose. Again I will never deny the sin, but as a human I am ashamed to say I understand sin. And I hate it when I fall also. I try to ask what is God showing me when a Good Priest or Pope can sin and fall from Grace. And then I see, If the devil can tempt them look what he can do to me. Maybe its Gods way of showing us we are all fair game for the devil and he wants us all so bad. But just because they fell from Grace you cannot deny the grace they once had to teach his word.

You can prove that in the dogma of the Church. If a Pope and Bishops teach it, it did indeed come from God and will never change. Teachings of the Church, and sins of human Priests are quite different.

 

[rinnie]

As there are two women mentioned in Rev. 12, I’m going to have to assume you are speaking of the first woman. I will have to give you an answer that you will probably upset you. As God who inspired the writer, inspired in many places throughout the Scriptures that more than one interpretation can be given, and all can be correct. An example would be the prophetic books of the Haftorah which apply to both the contemporary Jews and the travails of our own day.

So in reply, the Woman can and does represent, the Church, which is described as the Bride of Christ, as Jerusalem and the Synagogue were also related to as a woman. The woman also has illusions to Mary, the Mother of the Child. Her pains can be related to the suffering of the Saints (Church), and the anguish of Mary knowing of the passion of her Son.

Sorry I could not give one answer, but I have to side with the Early Church Fathers, as well as my Jewish upbringing, which is in line with the 2000 year teachings of the Catholic Church, that God’s message in the Scriptures can be layered with multiple meanings, and to narrow it down to just one opinion is to limit God.

Actually you gave the right answer and one and did not even realize it. Mary is the Mother Church.

To sum it up Mary the Mother of Christ. Mary the Mother Church. Same thing. Jesus Christ is the Church and Mary is the Mother of Christ. Just like Mary is the Mother of Christ and Christ is the CHurch she is the Mother of the CHurch also.

 

[rinnie]

Here is something else that alot of people may or may not know.

Now Protestants go against the teachings of the Church and agree with Luther. Here it comes. Luther believed in the Baptism of infants also.

 

[EdOsiecki]

I know your reply was to Rinnie, however, I for one cannot make any sense of it. Kelley was a Protestant, who wrote about the simultanious existance of one legitimate Pope, and two anti-Popes as if they all had a valid claim. While I do not mind the using of multiple sources, I would at least ask that you use some well researched and universally respected authors.

Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. I take issue with you, Kelley is a very respected author. He very accurately documents the history of all the popes. Have you read about the “cadaver” synod. Twenty years of feuding between pope Formosus and Boniface. Pope Stephen who presided over the “cadaver” trial. He had former pope Formosus’ decaying body exhumed and propped up on a throne, in full pontifical vestments, solemnly arraigned at a mock trial. Formosus was found guilty of perjury. etc.etc. All of his acts were declared null and void, including his ordinations, his blessing’s finger were hacked off and his body was flung into the Tiber river. This is history. Do I need to state more? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Here is something else that alot of people may or may not know.

Now Protestants go against the teachings of the Church and agree with Luther. Here it comes. Luther believed in the Baptism of infants also.

Hi rinnie, thanks for your reply. Yes you are correct. Not only Luther but some others (reformers) too. They were still ingrained into Catholicism. But you have the Scriptures before you. Read John 3:5 and see if you get baptism out of that Scripture. The Catholic church baptized infants for them to become born again based on John 3:5. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

More than that … insisting on chapters and verses is against sola scripura because when Bible books were written they did not have chapeters and verses. In a sense one can say chapters and verses are man-made traditions.

placido

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. How else does one find the truth, except through Scriptures. Here you seem to oppose man-made traditions, yet you rely on them for your church doctrine? Doesn’t make sense to me? Back to hosemonkey. I didn’t expect him to quote a Scripture to every sentence as you claim I do, but in 15+ posts one would think that he would quote at least ONE. Am I correct? ED

 

[EdOsiecki]

Now Ed please show me again one teaching that was taught in the RCC that was not the true word of God. Thanks Ed

Hi rinnie, thanks for your reply. In Mat 16:17-18, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. v18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” My question, is Peter the Rock that the Catholic church is being built upon? ED O.

 

[Filioque]

Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. I take issue with you, Kelley is a very respected author. He very accurately documents the history of all the popes. Have you read about the “cadaver” synod. Twenty years of feuding between pope Formosus and Boniface. Pope Stephen who presided over the “cadaver” trial. He had former pope Formosus’ decaying body exhumed and propped up on a throne, in full pontifical vestments, solemnly arraigned at a mock trial. Formosus was found guilty of perjury. etc.etc. All of his acts were declared null and void, including his ordinations, his blessing’s finger were hacked off and his body was flung into the Tiber river. This is history. Do I need to state more? ED O.

There are far better, and less biased Protestant Scholars than Kelley. That is not to say everything Kelley wrote is tainted, I posted on another thread where he admits to Papal Claims from the Early Church. There have been Catholic Historians who are biased, I just tend to be more selective in who I accept. I don’t accept a historian just because he or she writes what I like, or want to hear, I select them because not only the write the truth, but do so with evidence to back up their claims. For these reasons I like to read Msgr. Hughes, the late Fr. Louis Bouyer, and other Former Anti-Catholic Protestant Ministers, who by doing research from both Catholic and Protestant sources found out the Protestant side did not hold water and converted to the Catholic Faith.

Yup, I’m well aware of the trial, as well as the political manupulation of Stephen. I also know that the reasons (aside from the political pressure placed on Stephen) delt with the Behavior of Formosus prior to his election to the Papacy, and the people who resisted him during his own life. What most Protestants fail to either read or admit is that after Stephen’s own death, when the manipulation of the trial by those who used Steven was revealed and the case was again reviewed without the outside pressure, Pope Formosus reputation during his pontificate was restored, as was his reputation.

Unlike the brush that Protestants like to paint the Catholic idea of the Pope and Papacy with, we do know that the Pope is fully human, and can be manipulated by others, or err in his day to day actions, as we all do. He can and does sin, as a human. Ordination does not remove one’s humanity, it even invites Satan to tempt a man more, as if a priest, or bishop falls, many souls will become horrified with the Church and turn away from the Graces of Christ Jesus, either turing from God, or to error.

What the Catholic Church does teach however, is that Jesus promised that He would remain with the Church unto the consumation of the world. That Peter, the Rock would be given the Keys to the Kingdom, giving him the authority which only God (as Jesus is) can give. In this we know through the Sacred Scriptures that the Pope, as Successor of Peter is protected from defining de fide something that is heretical, or would lead the Church away from the Truth. As an individual man, he does not have that charism, (Which most Protestants claim for themselves whenever they interpret the Bible for themselves and tell us that the Holy Spirit guided them, even if it is contrary to what the Holy Spirit whispered in the ears of those “Saved Brothers” sitting next to them.) However when speaking in the fullness of his office, given by Christ, to all Christians, on a matter of Faith and Morals, God preserves and protects the Church from being taught error.

 

[Filioque]

More than that … insisting on chapters and verses is against sola scripura because when Bible books were written they did not have chapeters and verses. In a sense one can say chapters and verses are man-made traditions.

placido

Not simply Man made, but the division into Chapters was “invented” by a Catholic, and verses later on by another Catholic. It would seem that the Catholic Apostles and disciples who wrote the books of the NT, and the Catholic Councils (far before Trent) who fomalized the Canon, and rejected Hermas, and the Epistles of Clement, and other books that some Churches held as Scripture, were not the only Catholic sources that influenced the Bible he quotes from. Why even the King James Translators used the Catholic Translation of the Rheims in their efforts, and included the books that Protestants later removed from the Bible. But the full facts have no place in Ed O’s world.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Well now I have to apologize, as I unsubscribed to this thread, so I did not see your reply.

The first problem I see is that you are using an English translation of Torah. I’ll have to re-read my posting and see if I either mistyped or if you have misrepresented it. The ritual impurity of someone who touched an issue of blood from a woman after her period, or birth, or something contaminated by the blood, is again Ritual Impurity, and not Sin, as you described it, unless it was done willfully. While the word in Hebrew you use for the offering at the temple could be improperly translated Sin Offering by someone ignorant of the Jewish Law (Halkalah), it would more proper be a purification for ritual impurity, as I think I went over in my previous posting. So I do have to disagree with you.

As a Catholic, I would have to agree 100% that Mary did need a Savior, and that that Savior was and is Jesus her Son. However I also believe that as a singular Grace offered to her for the work she agreed to accomplish, God preserved her from Original Sin, and
by cooperation with God’s grace she remained free from actual sin. All of this was done by God, in anticipation of Jesus Sacrifice on the Cross, just as all the graces from the offerings of the doves, or any sacrifice at the Temple was given by God in anticipation of the Cross. So I see no contradiction.

Mat 1:25, well you may think you have me there, but once again you are thinking in the mindset of a 21st Century, english speaking, protestant. The Greek context is the same as the context for First Born Son, I was the first born son of my mother. If my brother and sister had not been born I would still have been the first born son. If she had never had other children, I would be the first male to open her womb, since I was not born by Cesarian Section. The same goes, and has been hashed out any number of times regarding the brothers and sisters. The names given are also mentioned in other passages, which give the names of other women as their mothers, and the Aramaic word used includes brother, cousin or close relation. Even if we allow for the custom among the Orthodox that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, it does not prove that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Another issue that you miss is that at different times during the history of Judaism, chastity was encouraged. That includes at the time of our Lord. While much is made of the chastity of the Jewish community of Qumran, the influence was strong at the time in Israel.

Just as the Ethiopian needed someone to show him the meaning of the Scriptures, we too need someone who is both learned in the history and meaning of the Scriptures. I do find your arguments, lifted from the usual suspects among Anti-Catholic writers to be sadly lacking. You will remain in my prayers.

Hi Filioque, thanks for reply. You agree 100% that Mary needed a Savior. Then you say, “I believe” that she was given special grace and God kept her a perpetual virgin. Aren’t you adding to Scripture, when you say ,“I believe”. My question, why do you believe that it was necessary for her to remain a virgin? Would it make her less holy if she had relations with Joseph? Why would Joseph then want to marry her without relations? By allowing Joseph to marry her she would have committed treachery and poured contempt upon the holy covenant of marriage. ED O.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Filioque, thanks for reply. You agree 100% that Mary needed a Savior. Then you say, “I believe” that she was given special grace and God kept her a perpetual virgin. Aren’t you adding to Scripture, when you say ,“I believe”. My question, why do you believe that it was necessary for her to remain a virgin? Would it make her less holy if she had relations with Joseph? Why would Joseph then want to marry her without relations? By allowing Joseph to marry her she would have committed treachery and poured contempt upon the holy covenant of marriage. ED O.

Please look up the definition of the word “pilpul” as applied to the study of Scripture. Once you have done that, please apply the definition to yourself, because rather than seeking the truth, you seem to revel in hairsplitting. Of course, when one is one’s own Pope, it is not a problem.

 

[Filioque]

Hi Filioque, thanks for reply. You agree 100% that Mary needed a Savior. Then you say, “I believe” that she was given special grace and God kept her a perpetual virgin. Aren’t you adding to Scripture, when you say ,“I believe”. My question, why do you believe that it was necessary for her to remain a virgin? Would it make her less holy if she had relations with Joseph? Why would Joseph then want to marry her without relations? By allowing Joseph to marry her she would have committed treachery and poured contempt upon the holy covenant of marriage. ED O.

Ed: What a wonderful way you have of trying in vain to twist and contort what people write into something else. However that is another subject entirely.

Nope, by saying “I believe” it is because I believe it, I don’t just assume it, or guess it, but I really do believe it. I am not adding to Scripture, any more than by using a computer, or driving a car which are not mentioned in the Bible, are either one of us adding to the Scriptures. If you think this silly, go tell the Amish that they are wrong and you are the authority on the BIble, because they interpret it (and it alone) the way they do. I also see Sola Scriptura, along with the Protestant tendancy to isolate the Scriptures from any context but ones own feelings, as not only a false non-biblical teaching, but one that causes a warped and error filled but dangerous. My studies as a child in Hebrew School, as a young adult at my grandfather’s Yeshiva, and as an adult both my own reading of Protestant and Catholic Scholars, plus the reading of History, Archeology, and Anthropology of the Middle East do not detract, but rather enhance and elevate the Scriptures by providing me with a deeper love of them, and faith that they are God breathed.

No I say I believe that based on several reasons. Convinced after comparison of the various contradictory Protestant theologies, all claiming to be Bible Based, the Catholic Claims, and the documents extant from the Christian, Jewish and Secular writers of the first few Centuries, as well as the customs of the Jews after the return from the Exile, that some married couples who lived in that time lived togeather, and made solemn vows to remain chaste.

This would not be the first time that Jews justified giving up Sexual Pleasure as a sacrifice to God. You may remember I was raised a Jew, and my grandfather was (before his own conversion to the Catholic Faith a year before his death) a well regarded Rabbi. When the question of must all Jews marry, and if so must all Jews always participate in the Marriage Blessing, (Sexual Relations) the reply was based on the reply of rabbis going back to the days before Jesus. Based on the Story of Jephtah’s daughter ( Judges Chaper 11 ) Jephtah (Yifta in Hebrew) Made a vow to sacrifice to God the first thing he saw when he returned home after winning in battle. He returned home, and the first thing he saw come out of his house was his only daughter. Now the problem was human sacrifice was Pagan, and contrary to the Law of Moses. So what to do? Jewish Scholars say that he offered her and her perpetual virginity to God, as a sacrified all the days of her life. Christian Scholars differ. Some Protestant Bible Scholars say that he did sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering, even though God did not accept the sacrifice. Most Protestants and Catholics accept the Jewish interpretation, as the scriptures say, that he “did to her according to his vow.” and not specifically that he offered her in a burnt sacrifice. So if you need a Scriptural indication that there are ways that one can keep the law, without following the letter, but the spirit of the Law, this may be (one of) the verses.

 

[EdOsiecki]

There are far better, and less biased Protestant Scholars than Kelley. That is not to say everything Kelley wrote is tainted, I posted on another thread where he admits to Papal Claims from the Early Church. There have been Catholic Historians who are biased, I just tend to be more selective in who I accept. I don’t accept a historian just because he or she writes what I like, or want to hear, I select them because not only the write the truth, but do so with evidence to back up their claims. For these reasons I like to read Msgr. Hughes, the late Fr. Louis Bouyer, and other Former Anti-Catholic Protestant Ministers, who by doing research from both Catholic and Protestant sources found out the Protestant side did not hold water and converted to the Catholic Faith.

Yup, I’m well aware of the trial, as well as the political manupulation of Stephen. I also know that the reasons (aside from the political pressure placed on Stephen) delt with the Behavior of Formosus prior to his election to the Papacy, and the people who resisted him during his own life. What most Protestants fail to either read or admit is that after Stephen’s own death, when the manipulation of the trial by those who used Steven was revealed and the case was again reviewed without the outside pressure, Pope Formosus reputation during his pontificate was restored, as was his reputation.

Unlike the brush that Protestants like to paint the Catholic idea of the Pope and Papacy with, we do know that the Pope is fully human, and can be manipulated by others, or err in his day to day actions, as we all do. He can and does sin, as a human. Ordination does not remove one’s humanity, it even invites Satan to tempt a man more, as if a priest, or bishop falls, many souls will become horrified with the Church and turn away from the Graces of Christ Jesus, either turing from God, or to error.

What the Catholic Church does teach however, is that Jesus promised that He would remain with the Church unto the consumation of the world. That Peter, the Rock would be given the Keys to the Kingdom, giving him the authority which only God (as Jesus is) can give. In this we know through the Sacred Scriptures that the Pope, as Successor of Peter is protected from defining de fide something that is heretical, or would lead the Church away from the Truth. As an individual man, he does not have that charism, (Which most Protestants claim for themselves whenever they interpret the Bible for themselves and tell us that the Holy Spirit guided them, even if it is contrary to what the Holy Spirit whispered in the ears of those “Saved Brothers” sitting next to them.) However when speaking in the fullness of his office, given by Christ, to all Christians, on a matter of Faith and Morals, God preserves and protects the Church from being taught error.

.Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. I’m aware that Pope Formosus was restored. Who ran the church for the twenty years of feuding in this case? Three popes claiming to be the official pope elsewhere, and on and on and elsewhere. Also Peter is not the Rock that the church is built on. ED O

 

[Filioque]

.Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. I’m aware that Pope Formosus was restored. Who ran the church for the twenty years of feuding in this case? Three popes claiming to be the official pope elsewhere, and on and on and elsewhere. Also Peter is not the Rock that the church is built on. ED O

Your false take on history, and hostility will not dash my faith in Christ Jesus. After all, either Jesus promised He would remain with the Church, or He lied. I prefer to think Jesus knowing human frailty remained with the Church, and did not run and hide until Protestantism was invented, and then run and hide as each “Reformer” fell into error, waiting until His will was fulfilled in and angry Ed.

You will just have to take up Peter as the Rock elsewhere, as this thread has devolved from infant baptism into Ed’s bully board, where the shotgun is loaded with inaccurate accusations by the usual Anti-Catholic authors, and randomly shot to see what will stick. No evidence of any scholarship, just the same disproved allegations against the Catholic Church, and no real replies to what reputable scholars have written.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Ed: What a wonderful way you have of trying in vain to twist and contort what people write into something else. However that is another subject entirely.

Nope, by saying “I believe” it is because I believe it, I don’t just assume it, or guess it, but I really do believe it. I am not adding to Scripture, any more than by using a computer, or driving a car which are not mentioned in the Bible, are either one of us adding to the Scriptures. If you think this silly, go tell the Amish that they are wrong and you are the authority on the BIble, because they interpret it (and it alone) the way they do. I also see Sola Scriptura, along with the Protestant tendancy to isolate the Scriptures from any context but ones own feelings, as not only a false non-biblical teaching, but one that causes a warped and error filled but dangerous. My studies as a child in Hebrew School, as a young adult at my grandfather’s Yeshiva, and as an adult both my own reading of Protestant and Catholic Scholars, plus the reading of History, Archeology, and Anthropology of the Middle East do not detract, but rather enhance and elevate the Scriptures by providing me with a deeper love of them, and faith that they are God breathed.

No I say I believe that based on several reasons. Convinced after comparison of the various contradictory Protestant theologies, all claiming to be Bible Based, the Catholic Claims, and the documents extant from the Christian, Jewish and Secular writers of the first few Centuries, as well as the customs of the Jews after the return from the Exile, that some married couples who lived in that time lived togeather, and made solemn vows to remain chaste.

This would not be the first time that Jews justified giving up Sexual Pleasure as a sacrifice to God. You may remember I was raised a Jew, and my grandfather was (before his own conversion to the Catholic Faith a year before his death) a well regarded Rabbi. When the question of must all Jews marry, and if so must all Jews always participate in the Marriage Blessing, (Sexual Relations) the reply was based on the reply of rabbis going back to the days before Jesus. Based on the Story of Jephtah’s daughter ( Judges Chaper 11 ) Jephtah (Yifta in Hebrew) Made a vow to sacrifice to God the first thing he saw when he returned home after winning in battle. He returned home, and the first thing he saw come out of his house was his only daughter. Now the problem was human sacrifice was Pagan, and contrary to the Law of Moses. So what to do? Jewish Scholars say that he offered her and her perpetual virginity to God, as a sacrified all the days of her life. Christian Scholars differ. Some Protestant Bible Scholars say that he did sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering, even though God did not accept the sacrifice. Most Protestants and Catholics accept the Jewish interpretation, as the scriptures say, that he “did to her according to his vow.” and not specifically that he offered her in a burnt sacrifice. So if you need a Scriptural indication that there are ways that one can keep the law, without following the letter, but the spirit of the Law, this may be (one of) the verses.

Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. When you say you “believe” and I say I don’t believe, and someone else has another opinion. How do we then know what is the truth? What you say concerning couples making a vow to remain chaste. I will accept that it sounds rescannable. I had two more questions that failed to answer. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Please do not attempt to patronize me by telling me to “Buy myself a Bible.” I have six different versions of the bible available to me and I do have the ability to read for myself what they say. But I do not presume to “infallibly” interpret those bible passages that are not readily understandable. For that, I rely on those who have devoted their lives to bible scholarship. And Jim Jones and David Koresh relied on themselves (like you) to interpret Scripture, Whoops! Bad things happened. And because Christ’s Church (the Catholic Church) is incapable of teaching error, I rely on Her for true teaching. As I said before, your problem is that of “invincible ignorance” and Placido and I are wasting our time in trying to show you your errors. Go in peace.

Hi hosemonkey, thanks for your reply. The reason I said you ought to buy yourself a Bible because in 15 posts including this one you never once quoted any Scripture to support your side of the debate. Why are you bringing placido into this debate, aren’t you capable to stand alone? I have only one question to ask you, would you please show me the Scripture that states the popes or the church are infallible and they cannot error? ED O.

 

[Filioque]

Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. When you say you “believe” and I say I don’t believe, and someone else has another opinion. How do we then know what is the truth? What you say concerning couples making a vow to remain chaste. I will accept that it sounds rescannable. I had two more questions that failed to answer. ED O.

Once again, you have the advantage. My crystal ball is in the shops for repairs, so I can’t read your mind the way you do everyone else here. Yours however seems to be in working order. I did not fail to answer, but have yet to answer them. My answers do tend to be long, because I check my references, and try to be as comprehensive as possible. Don’t however assume that many would want to answer all your questions, given your own retreat from answering what others have asked you. To use a tactic you use, look through the various threads you post on, and find the questions you have not answered.

A beneficial side effect of reading your incongruent postings is that I do spend a bit more time in prayer and entrusting your soul to the care of our Lady, that she may help lead you to her son. Given my history, I know that if you want to get something done, ask a Jewish boy’s mother, and she will plea your case with the greatest of efficiency.

 

[Filioque]

Hi Filioque, thanks for reply. You agree 100% that Mary needed a Savior. Then you say, “I believe” that she was given special grace and God kept her a perpetual virgin. Aren’t you adding to Scripture, when you say ,“I believe”. My question, why do you believe that it was necessary for her to remain a virgin? Would it make her less holy if she had relations with Joseph? Why would Joseph then want to marry her without relations? By allowing Joseph to marry her she would have committed treachery and poured contempt upon the holy covenant of marriage. ED O.

In answer to the two questions you accused me of not answering, I’ll be short as it is late.

First, I do believe based on the reasons I mentioned in an earlier posting, that it happened the way that Catholics, Orthodox, Non-Calcedonians, and among the majority of Reformers, and Protestants up until around 100 years ago, that Mary did remain a perpetual virgin. So any reasons I give would only be speculation.

Mary would not have been any less holy if she entered into physical relations with Joseph, but the idea that she did is so new and and without scholarly or historic merit, it is just silly. One problem with those who are given this line of attack by their Pastors, and other “resources” is that they fail to inform them that this is a new idea that has no basis in the first 1800 years of Chrisitanity. It is as it where, “Adding to Scripture”.

Aside from the fact that the Brothers and Sisters of Jesus are elsewhere in the NT identified as having other women as their mothers, and the argument of the word translated into English as also meaning cousin or close relation, we already see the problems of the Da Vinci code claiming the “Bloodline” and an alternative to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Secondly, if Mary did have relations with Joseph and had other children, who would be blood relations to Jesus, what is their role in the Church? Look at what happened with early Mormons, who split into several sects, one claiming that the bloodline of Joseph Smith are the real leaders of the Church. How does one who is not True God and True Man deal with having a blood brother, (even if only half brother) who is God, and died for all our sins? That has got to be a real downer.

Thirdly, what of Jesus giving Mary’s care to John at the Cross. If Jesus had any brothers and sisters, (we have to remember that nowhere in the Bible does it say that anyone except perhaps Simon, who Jesus changed the name to Rock, identified Jesus as being the Son of God, except Mary and Joseph. While the Bible does not say explicitly that others knew Jesus was not Joseph’s blood son, it also does not say they did not, however this would have been very problematic to his ministry and mission, and as we don’t read about any allegations that he was a bastard child, from that time at least, we can safely assume that he had no other children. If Mary was a young fertile woman, and was having an active sex life with Joseph, we would expect to see other children, and if the false supposition among some Protestants that “First Born” means that there are other children, they would have been responsible to take care of Mary at the death of Jesus, otherwise Jesus would have been raised in a very bad Jewish family. I don’t know why the author of the Law of Moses would want to become incarnate into a family that disregarded Jewish Laws and Customs. (Don’t forget that perpetual virginity among some Jews is both Biblical as my posting on the subject states, and culturally allowed.)

I could go on, but I think these are enough reasons for now. So I’ll leave it with the final statement, that saying Mary was not a perpetual virgin is in my opinion, adding to Scripture.