T
Timothy_Piper
Guest
A simple addition to the true meaning; why? To distort the truth? I don’t know, but makes no sense to add a definition that never existed in all ancient writing.
- Status
T
Timothy_Piper
Guest
My remarks reflect the word of God; how can you say He had no brothers when the Bible said He did and sisters as well? That is plain as day and the Greek word for cousin was not used and would have been if that was the case, they were cousins and not siblings. Other parts make is clear that it could not reference “brethren”; so how do you reconcile this?
Oh well; must be time for me to leave the thread; I can see you all do not believe the word of God, but I do give you strong credit for believing strongly in your faith.
T
Timothy_Piper
Guest
It say the one who believed He meant the literal eating of His flesh that walked away and He clealy stated the manner to which He spoke in verse 63 and Peter concurred. I can’t make you all see the obvious, that is the power of the Holy Spirit and the gift of God.
I’m out of this thread; can’t stand to see anymore tortuous treating of Scripture.
God bless all of you and I pray you will all become like Christ.
Timothy
E
eucharisteo
Guest
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
**1 Timothy 3:15 (New American Bible)
**
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.I think you need to read your bible. I was bible only for 18 years plus 12. In fact I was a bible only Catholic at one point but that is why I left. Now that I’ve actually read and studied the bible and history I know a bit more.
S
SeanTom
Guest
= = = = = =
TimothyPiper,
The term “brother” has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to brothers germane or half brothers. The same goes for “sister” and the plural “brethren”. Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Moholi; Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren”, the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chron 23:21-22)
The terms “brethren“, “brother“, and “sister“ did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant only a kinsman (Dt 23:8; Jer 34:9). The words could mean even people apparently unrelated, such as a friend (1 Kings 9:13, 20:12). Or just an ally (Amos 1:9).
Why this ambiguous usage? Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and His disciples, had a special word meaning “cousin“. Speakers of those languages used either the word for “brother“ or a circumlocution, such as “the son of the sister of my father“. Using a circumlocution was clumsy way to speak, so they naturally fell to using the word “brother“. The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of “brethren“ to mean both cousins and sons of the same father - plus other relatives and even non-relatives. To determine just what “brethren“ or “brother“ or “sister“ means in any one verse, we must look at the context. When we do that, we may see insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “the son of Mary“ (Mk 6:3), not as “a son of Mary“. If the words “a son of Mary“ were used, then that might infer that there were other sons, but the words were “THE son of Mary“. The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary‘s sons, not even when they are called Jesus‘ “brethren“. If they were in fact her sons, this would be a strange usage. I do find it strange that many of the persons named in the Bible are referred to as “______, the son or daughter of _______”. Other than Jesus, I can recall no reference to any of Jesus‘ alleged brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, or Judas as being referred to as “a son of Mary or Joseph“.
The other argument used by some concerns the term “first-born.” They say Jesus could not be called Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. This is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant that child who opened the womb (Ex 13:2, Nb3:12). Under the Mosaic law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex 34-20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Not hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her “first-born”. Does this mean that she had other children AFTER her death? Not hardly. The words “first born” does not necessarily mean that there were others. In Laws of Inheritance, the words “first son” was used quite often since the “first son” inherited his father’s estate. Even though there may be only one son, he was still referred to as the “first son”. “First son” was frequently used in biblical times.
Are we not all brothers and sisters of Christ??
As for me personally, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether Jesus had other bloodline brothers and sisters born of his Mother Mary after the virgin birth. My faith is not dependent on the historical value of the Bible. I base my faith on the “messages” that are conveyed to me through holy scripture. I ask the Holy Spirit to give me the knowledge to understand the message that Christ wants me to receive. I am very dedicated to my faith as it pertains to the moral, faith and salvation teachings of Jesus Christ. I may not agree with the church in all areas, but that in no way effects my standing with my Christian beliefs. The Catholic Church is my foundation, and supports me in my quest to become a better Christian, while at the same time seeking entrance into God‘s Kingdom…
G
guanophore
Guest
No, there have been heretics like this throughout history. In Against Heresies Irenaeus writes about this specifically in the second century.
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree that people still become corrupted today, just as they did then. The mistake was thinking that doctrine needed reform, in addition to men.
There remains, however, significant Apostolic Teaching in the Westminster confession, alongside the departures. It is a mystery how Protestants got from this confession, to the modern one that Eucharist has nothing to do with His Body and Blood. I have heard from many of my separated brethren here that Jn. 6 “has nothing to do” with the Lord’s supper.
Yes, I believe you. I think this is a function of unbelief. Jesus clearly taught that many would see, and still not believe, and more blessed is the one who does not see, and still believes.
There are many mysteries in the Faith that transcend human sensory experience.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Mr Piper,
We Catholics live our faith. We are not ignorant people. Our faith is based on the the whole content of Scripture. The spirit of the Church is found in our council documents which represent All the bishops of the world, and the existing subcultures of many different peoples and races, in union with the Pope, the entirety of Scripture in the context of the Old Testament and the New.
Do you know we cover the entire Bible at Mass. It takes 3 years. So we divide up the various passages into 3 cycles. So we hear different takes … of the same message.
Everything we believe in Scripture must fit the discipline that I shared with you in how we understand Scripture several posts ago which you put down. That shows you lack proper academic education and discipline and follow whimsy in picking and choosing whatever.
If you did not have the Catholic Church to put down, half of your faith would collapse because your position is to prove you are superior to us and we know nothing. Same with Baptists and other fundamentalists, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses…all using incomplete Scriptures…
You can’t take just one apostle here or another event there in contrast to the depth and breath of the entire Sacred Scripture and the history of the salvation of people through the Chosen Race, the Jews and its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
The Lord never left us to our own way of looking. He came to a gathering of people, not willful individuals all hagling over this and that detail, which St. Paul so warned us about.
We Catholics live our faith. We are not ignorant people. Our faith is based on the the whole content of Scripture. The spirit of the Church is found in our council documents which represent All the bishops of the world, and the existing subcultures of many different peoples and races, in union with the Pope, the entirety of Scripture in the context of the Old Testament and the New.
Do you know we cover the entire Bible at Mass. It takes 3 years. So we divide up the various passages into 3 cycles. So we hear different takes … of the same message.
Everything we believe in Scripture must fit the discipline that I shared with you in how we understand Scripture several posts ago which you put down. That shows you lack proper academic education and discipline and follow whimsy in picking and choosing whatever.
If you did not have the Catholic Church to put down, half of your faith would collapse because your position is to prove you are superior to us and we know nothing. Same with Baptists and other fundamentalists, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses…all using incomplete Scriptures…
You can’t take just one apostle here or another event there in contrast to the depth and breath of the entire Sacred Scripture and the history of the salvation of people through the Chosen Race, the Jews and its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
The Lord never left us to our own way of looking. He came to a gathering of people, not willful individuals all hagling over this and that detail, which St. Paul so warned us about.
P
PJM
Guest
***Dear Brother Tim,
You’re lack of understanding of the bible, both what it say’s and what it means makes yo’ure soul like a “Bull in a China Shop,” AT GREAT PERIL AND RISK!
What is so hard to comprehend about these words? “YOU”, friend is SINGULAR:thumbsup: The Bible was completed when there was ONLY One Christian Church [today’s CC] and Only One Bible written for this very same church
Matt.16: [19] I [Jesus] will give you [Peter and My ONLY church] 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." ***
And again if you didn’t understand the first time: Matt.18: 18 “Truly, I [JESUS] say to you,[Peter and My only Church] whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Read it in the KJB!
I did not comprehend your issue with Hebrews. Please explain.
All Seven Sacraments are instituted by Chist, either implicitly or explicitly [Eucharist, Baptism and Confessionof of sins]
These verses are the implicit foundation for the Catholic Priesthood. Mt. 16:15-19, Mt. 18:18 and…
Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: [Jesus addressing His Apostles] “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
John.20 Verses 19 to 23: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
James 5:14 “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven”.
And because the Eucharist can ONLY be made present into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity by God’s direct unilization of HIS priest and Bishops…
Mt. 26: 26-28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22:19-21, Paul 1 Cor. 11:23-30, and John 6: 40-69.
Luke.22 Verses 19 to 20 "And he [JESUS] took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. **Do this in remembrance of me.” **[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. **
***Eucharist, Mass, Forgiveness of sins and Anointing of the sick can only be accomplished by Catholic Priest and Bishops.
And before you share that it’s not explict in the bible take your KJV andf look up John 21:24-25*
And then friend look at 2 Tim. 3:16, yes even in your abreviated and altered JKB.**Love and prayers Tim,
Pat
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
the problem with non Catholics is that they read the Bible as if the church should begin the day they pick the Bible. they dont have the understanding that the Church begin at Pentecost day and remains to this day. they simply assume since they can read the Bible why need a Church.***Dear Brother Tim,
You’re lack of understanding of the bible, both what it say’s and what it means makes yo’ure soul like a “Bull in a China Shop,” AT GREAT PERIL AND RISK!
What is so hard to comprehend about these words? “YOU”, friend is SINGULAR:thumbsup: The Bible was completed when there was ONLY One Christian Church [today’s CC] and Only One Bible written for this very same church
Matt.16: [19] I [Jesus] will give you [Peter and My ONLY church] 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." *****
And again if you didn’t understand the first time: Matt.18: 18 “Truly, I [JESUS] say to you,[Peter and My only Church] whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Read it in the KJB!
I did not comprehend your issue with Hebrews. Please explain.
All Seven Sacraments are instituted by Chist, either implicitly or explicitly [Eucharist, Baptism and Confessionof of sins]
These verses are the implicit foundation for the Catholic Priesthood. Mt. 16:15-19, Mt. 18:18 and…
Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: [Jesus addressing His Apostles] “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
John.20 Verses 19 to 23: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
James 5:14 “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven”.
And because the Eucharist can ONLY be made present into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity by God’s direct unilization of HIS priest and Bishops…
Mt. 26: 26-28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22:19-21, Paul 1 Cor. 11:23-30, and John 6: 40-69.
Luke.22 Verses 19 to 20 "And he [JESUS] took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. **Do this in remembrance of me.” **[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
***Eucharist, Mass, Forgiveness of sins and Anointing of the sick can only be accomplished by Catholic Priest and Bishops.
And before you share that it’s not explict in the bible take your KJV andf look up John 21:24-25***
Love and prayers Tim,
Pat
they think they can enterpret the Bible. oh wait there is no need for enterpretation according to them because if it is not written then word for word it should not be a part of the Church. the reason they deny the Eucharist is because they dont have priesthood. without priesthood there is no Eucharist therefore it must be denied the meaning of it.
E
ethereality
Guest
OP:
So one may use the phrase “the sacrament of his body and blood” without necessarily implying that the sacrament contains his body and blood. In fact, they later clarify this relation in a later paragraph that you quoted, to the effect that the sacrament contains only bread and wine that represent the body and blood.
Eh. I guess this post was redundant – someone’s probably already said all this, and in a manner more coherent … I’m just trying to be helpful … don’t mind me.
Regarding the main point of this thread, I agree with you: It is difficult to persuade someone whose authority tells them that you are an unreasonable person … I’m finding that out also with Islam, where the second surah of the Quran says again and again and again that if you disagree with the Quran, then you are a fool and a sinner and evil and perhaps hiding the truth … >__<; man, I’m reading the Quran for the first time, and it’s disturbing, at least the first ~150 verses into it…
Language can be tricky. I may legitimately interpret the preposition “of” to mean that “the sacrament” is somehow related to “his body and blood” in a manner remaining to be determined. Like the phrase, “the representative of the European Union” – ‘of’ gives the reader information that the representative is related to the European Union, but does not say precisely how.
So one may use the phrase “the sacrament of his body and blood” without necessarily implying that the sacrament contains his body and blood. In fact, they later clarify this relation in a later paragraph that you quoted, to the effect that the sacrament contains only bread and wine that represent the body and blood.
Eh. I guess this post was redundant – someone’s probably already said all this, and in a manner more coherent … I’m just trying to be helpful … don’t mind me.
Regarding the main point of this thread, I agree with you: It is difficult to persuade someone whose authority tells them that you are an unreasonable person … I’m finding that out also with Islam, where the second surah of the Quran says again and again and again that if you disagree with the Quran, then you are a fool and a sinner and evil and perhaps hiding the truth … >__<; man, I’m reading the Quran for the first time, and it’s disturbing, at least the first ~150 verses into it…
M
Marie5890
Guest
This thread is almost a year old, too.
E
ethereality
Guest
“Goonies never say die!”
This thread is almost a year old, too.
… I like to think that, in a web forum, there is no expiration date to conversations. … until the thread is automatically deleted or locked. 
- Status