T
TriuneUnity
Guest
No…though some do try, despite their feeble ability to do so, to become a Paul ogists
If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3
- Status
C
Cinette
Guest
:clapping: :dancing:
C
celticcrusader
Guest
OK so what about ENOCH & ELIJAH?? Please look at Gen. 5:24 &2nd Kings 2:11& Hebrews 11:5 after you read and ponder this we can further dicuss you doubts. Another thing if you study history of the Church from the start you will notice a lot of Churches claim to have the remains in thier Church , St Peters in Rome , St Pauls outside the walls, ect.ect., and the list goes on & on how come NO Church has EVER made the claim to have the remains of Mary ? Pretty strange for Mary worshippers don’t you think? I await your answer.
C
celticcrusader
Guest
You are correct Jesus was the only one ever to ascend into heaven, while Mary was ASSUMED into heaven,hence the feast of the assumption Aug.15th,
also the brother & sister thing has been discussed endlessly here at CAF , search some old threads you will find the same conclusion time and time again there was no word for cousins or very close almost like family]friends in the old langauge so they used bros. & sis. Ihope this sparks your intrest to study early church history or ask more questions.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I had a guy a few months back send me a PM and said he was converting to Catholicism. He use to give me and other Catholics here a hard time but I don’t think he was a bigot…Hi Jimmy B!
I have been reading some of the threads and some of the Protestants are very nice and then you get the “thorns in the side” types who either hate the RCC or just love to have some fun and dig.
Tell me - Has there ever been a real biggot who HATED the Church change his/her mind about the Catholic Church on this forum?
\
:ehh:
C
Cinette
Guest
Yes bigot was rather strong but you know what I mean: the “yes but’s” the “thorns” and aggressive people.
I have been reading some threads and notice that once they settle down they are really quite charming and knowledgeable, some of them.
Thanks for your response Jimmy:clapping:
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I represent that remark!
A
aboabo
Guest
The term we know as *heaven *is the Old-English translation of the two original words in The Bible - the Hebrew word in the Old Testament is pronounced shaw-may, and the Greek word in the New Testament is pronounced oo-ran-aws. Both mean the same thing - either the sky, or the outer space above it, depending on what the writer was talking about at the time. Sky or *space *are quite accurate modern substitutes for heaven. For example:
“Heaven” translated meaning the sky, the *atmosphere *-
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater.” (Isaiah 55:10 RSV)
“and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:20 RSV)
“And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Kings 2:11 RSV)
“Heaven” translated meaning outer space, the abode of God -
“O Lord, God of our fathers, art Thou not God in heaven?” (2 Chronicles 20:6 RSV)
“So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” (Mark 16:19 RSV)
“No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” (John 3:13 RSV)
A Peaceful Retirement For A Faithful Old Prophet
Elijah’s ministry was long and powerful, but eventually he could no longer perform his duties, as he himself stated:
“It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am no better than my fathers.” (1 Kings 19:4).
So God had him call the younger Elisha, to continue the ministry:
“So he departed from there, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing, with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and cast his mantle upon him.” (1 Kings 19:19 RSV).
When the day came when Elisha was ready to carry on alone, Elijah was then spectacularly transported away:
“And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Kings 2:11 RSV).
The fifty men who were nearby (2 Kings 2:7), who witnessed the departure, *knew *that Elijah was taken somewhere else on earth because that’s where they searched for him (2 Kings 2:15-18). They would not have looked for him on earth if they had seen him go straight up into space, like a rocket. They saw him fly away, across the sky, as does an airplane, headed for somewhere on earth.
Elijah was taken away to a safe and peaceful place on earth to live out the remainder of his years. If he were just to have died, he could have done that right where he already was.
“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” (Hebrews 11:5 KJV)
“By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.” (Hebrews 11:5 RSV)
What Does “Translated” Mean?
Translated is used by the King James Version in Hebrews 11:5 for the original Greek word of the New Testament, pronounced meta-tith-ay-mee, which literally means removed, or taken away. The Revised Standard Version (which is based on the American Standard Version) uses taken, which provides a clearer picture of what was actually written in the original words of the Scriptures. Enoch was taken away so that he “was not found” and “wouldn’t see death.”
But, “was not found” by who? And what does “wouldn’t see death” mean?
We know, according to the uncontradictory Word of God that “it is appointed for men to die once” (Hebrews 9:27 RSV), and that Enoch, being a man, however righteous and faithful he was, would have eventually died just like all other men.
So what happened?
According to the ages provided in the genealogical account in Genesis 5:21-32, Enoch lived in the era of his great-grandson Noah. And what does the Bible say about the world at that time, when Enoch was taken away?
“Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.” (Genesis 6:11 RSV)
Out-of-control human *violence *was the reason that God later brought the flood upon humanity:
"And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Genesis 6:13 RSV)
Enoch was a very good and righteous man who was living in a very dangerous, extremely *violent *world. God took righteous Enoch away, not so that he wouldn’t *ever *see death, but so that, according to the Scriptures, “he was not found” by the evil, extremely violent people who would have *murdered *such a faithful man. He was taken to a place of safety, on this earth, where he would have lived out the remainder of his life before dying a natural death just like every other human.
What *importance *is a claim to have the remains (dust) of a dead person? i.e. What is the purpose of worshipping dust?
A
aboabo
Guest
The feast of the assumption appears nowhere in the Bible.
Why search a catholic forum to find out whether Jesus Christ had *older *brothers and/or sisters?
The Bible clearly states He had none;
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
C
celticcrusader
Guest
so basically what you are saying is if it is not in the bible , it is not so? Also I do agree with your statement that Jesus had no brothers or sisters by Mary
A
aboabo
Guest
Yes. If the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus had long hair, then Jesus didn’t have long hair.
By the way, what is the circle around the heads of biblical characters seen in ancient religious paintings?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
aboabo, I think you are making one of the most common errors in interpreting scripture there is if you think the expression “she brought forth her firstborn son” to mean Mary had more than one child. The term “firstborn” is a special title that is of significance to the Jews since the Jew’s firstborn were dedicated to The Lord and they had a special family role to play - taking care of the parents, continuation of family name etc. When it is used in conversation or writing it does not imply that there was a second born or a 3rd born etc. This is why it is important to understand the culture and the traditions of the people in the Bible and why one needs the Apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church to interpret the bible. It is impossible for an average lay person with no period knowledge or historical insight to read the bible and understand but the most basic things being told. This is a prime example of why sola scriptura is such a wrong teaching and why one needs The Church to teach what scripture means.
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
So by your reckoning would you conclude that because the bible does not mention “Protestant” or “Baptist” or “Evangelical” etc. that none of these “churches” are Christian?
Do you think the bible is a fabrication of man since the bible does not mention “the bible” nor tell us how many books are in it?
How did the bible come to you and why do you think it is inspired?
Hint: The Catholic Church brought you the bible.
James
L
Leeann
Guest
Perhaps some would pronounce that last sentence:
The Catholic Church brought you “their” bible, which includes books that are not proven to be “inspired” by God.
A
aboabo
Guest
Hi James, If you’d like to express how I’ve misinterpreted scripture, then please present biblical verses to support anything you just said.
Also, perhaps you could tell me why I was initially asked here about Jesus being the firstborn of Mary.
A
aboabo
Guest
There is only one church; the Church of God.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Your personal assertions are less than uninspiring. Prove it Leeann…
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Oh aboabo, for some reason I don’t get the impression you are wanting to learn anything here and want to pontificate your own private interpretation of scripture while denying everyone else in your church and the competing churches their own interpretations.
I don’t really have the time to spend on these sorts of pointless dialogs unless you are open to honest consideration. If you do want the truth about if Jesus had ovarian brothers or not please scan these forums - we have talked about it ad-nauseum. I will save you the trouble and tell you most definately though that He did not.
Again, if you understand the Hebrew conventions of the time “brothers” could be applied to cousins, or half brothers and even close friends. Is this the only thing keeping you from being Catholic or do you need to start a new topic thread so we don’t hijack this one with one-off personal topics of every variety.
In the mean time you might want to contemplate the following verses and see if they have any personal relevance to the questions you ask:
Nehemiah 8:8 (c.f. Mark 4:33-34)
Scripture makes it clear that authorized teaching and understanding are needed in order for people to understand parables and scripture.
Acts 8:27-31 Clearly apostolic interpretation are needed to understand Nt teaching - only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have authentic apostolic teaching - a charism passed down by succession.
2 Peter 1:20 (c.f. 2 Peter 3:15-16) Peter himself tells us “no prophecy is a matter of one’s private interpretation”.
Moses was told to TEACH the Hebrews the statutes and decisions NOT just read them. (Exod 18:20) . Levitical priests interpreted the biblical injunctions (Deut 17:11) The PENALTY FOR DISOBEDIENCE (i.e. private interpretation) was DEATH (Deut. 17:12, 33:10. c.f. 19:16-17;2 Chron 15:3. 19:8-10; Mal. 2:6-8)! Ezra, a PRIEST, taught Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding and disobedience was prison, banishment and death (Ezra 7:6, 10,15-26).
More at 2 Chron 17:8-9. Clearly from this NT passage the principal DID NOT change in the NT covenant. The Apostles did not tolerate dissension and private interpretation.
St. Paul gives us the binding authority of TRADITION (i.e. church interpretation): 1 Cor. 11:2 “… maintain the traditions I have delivered”. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 - Paul tells that they received the word of God through teaching and hearing (not reading) and not the word of men (not private interpretation popular since The Protestant Revolution). 2 Thess. 2:15 Paul tells us “hold to the traditions taught by mouth or letter”. And again in 2 Thess 3:6 tells us to pay no heed to somone not following the traditions and living according to his own private interpretation.
Matthew also tells us to follow Oral and Extrabiblical traditions passed down by the apostles.
Matthew 2:23 tells us teaching was spoken and a reference is made to an OT tradition that is NOT written in the OT (“he shall be called a Nazarene”). This means that tradition is integral with written word. Matthew 23:1-3 tells us to obey the teachings of the religious authorities (but not follow their bad examples).
There is a lot more too> Look at 1 Cor 10:4, 1 Peter 3:19, Jude 9, 2 Tim. 3:8, James 5:17, Mark 7:3,5, Mark 7:8-9
There is so much more - but that is enough to whet your appetite I am sure. The bottom line is that if somone is insisting on private interpretation they are introducing a “new teaching of man” never before taught by the apostles nor their successors until the Protestants broke away in 1550s.
Here is an easy link to an old discussion we already head on Jesus not having literal ovarian brothers.
Jesus’ brothers and sisters
Good Luck but I’d really recommend you get some Catholic study guides if you want to really know the true apostolic interpretation of scripture.
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
We agree then. And God’s Church means The Universal Church or “The Catholic Church”.
Why aren’t you Catholic?
James
F
fbl9
Guest
i’ll say it again the reason non catholic christians are not catholic is because they can not accept the God given authority of His church.btw this is a repeat of one of my first posts from when i joined here at CAF
- Status