Inerrant Bible

[guanophore]

*]God has established laws for our sake. He does not interevene directly in the workings of the material world.

I must say I found this assertion very shocking. I asked you elsewhere what the implications of that were with regard to the Gospels. I guess I am wondering now…isn’t this a Deist view? Is God like an absent landlord, who has set creation in motion, then gone off and left it? And He asks that we remember He was here by ritualizing a symbolic even weekly?

*]Their immutability means that bread and wine cannot be changed into flesh and blood

Well, maybe not, because we are talking about “inerrant Bible”. If He did not do what He said he was doing, as it is recorded in the Bible, then the Bible is very errant, and there is probably not much in there at all that is of use to us.
Carol Coombe;1987008:

1. He is of course NOT governed by those laws. He established them, but has clearly chosen not to intervene, shift, change or adapt them, as far as we know now. In other words, God cannot be expected to halt global warming: it is not in His nature to do so. (This does not preclude the idea that He created an automatic self-healing system within the planet itself, independent of humankinds’ activities.)

Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you mean when you say He will not intervene? However, when you say He will not change bread and wine to body and blood, doesn;t that also mean He will not heal the deaf, dumb, blind, and lame? Doesn’t that also mean He will not walk on water, or turn water into wine, or multiply loaves and fish?

Natural disasters that cause human suffering – the Asian tsunami, global plagues like HIV, South American mudslides, Icelandic explosions, Swiss avalanches, South African rockfalls, droughts and floods, cataclysms on the ocean floor, flooding as a result of global warming, Chinese mine collapses, and Pacific and Caribbean volcanic eruptions – are the result of physical, chemical and other natural laws at work. They happen in accordance with God’s absolute creation principles. Inevitably, they cause anguish and at times colossal suffering. They do so in our day; they have always done so; and they will continue to do so.

So, in your mind, does this equal that God does not intrude upon the creation He has made?

They are the workings of God’s principles, and not of God himself. He did not make them happen - it is not useful to ask *How could God have done this to me? *

He did not.

It might be useful to ask in relation to one’s own soul before God. It is personalizing natural disasters, but sometimes, when a person’s world is turned upside down, it is a good time to have a spiritual awakening. Is it not also true that, since God is not bound by the laws of the nature He made, that He could prevent such things if He wished to do so? Or is He not really omnipotent?

4. I have based my post on my knowledge and understanding of science (not physics alone - but the complex interrelationships between various sciences). God is *of course*

not bound to follow his own laws of creation, but has chosen - because he is omniscient and omnipresent and omnibenevolent - that they remain constant, for our sakes.

This means, for me, that transubtantiation is not possible. I would not call this absurd; I would not call people who believe this absurd; I would not call you absurd; I would prefer it if you would not refer to my hard-won understandings as absurd.

Blessings

It is certainly a hard saying for those of us who think and believe differently, Carol. Those of us that have experienced God intervening on His creation cannot accept that transubstantiation does not happen, and that God does not intervene on His natural creation and change things whenever He deems suitable.

 

[guanophore]

OK Dave, I am out of here. This is the most inherently unchristian revelation of the patronizing arrogance and self-importance of some Catholic believers. This is not a Forum for Catholics but for Catholic answers where you will engage with Christians and non-Christians.

Ok, I can see now how you got fed up. I think you do not realize that your statements come across like pronouncements, and when you pronounce against our faith, it creates reactions. But, “let us bear with one another” as the scriptures guide us.
Carol Coombe;1990271:

I am/was a would-be Catholic convert. I am performing what the Hindus call sannyasi – a contemplative spiritual journey in the last third of my life. I chose Christianity (I am a baptised Canadian Baptist), and within that paradigm, the Catholic Church to mentor my journey.

I found a mentor who would provide spiritual direction once a week; I attend mass three times each week; catechism class once a week; two Sunday services; study sessions and house masses. I go on Retreat, in Canada and in South Africa where I live. My mentors are a Bishop, a Monsignor and an eminent Jesuit. I read, I pray, I meditate, I contemplate. I actually think. 'QUOTE]

You have already done more than the majority of cradle catholics, such as myself!

I know that *Christ works through me, Christ stands with me, and Christ is in me. *

I know that Christ’s death on the cross, which he willingly accepted, assured my redemption and salvation, but also demanded that I follow his example of loving compassion, healing and caritas in this life.

I am musing right now on how this actually happens. If you are part of His natural creation, how come He can be in you, and work through you when he is not present in Eucharist, or other elements? Perhaps that does go afield of the inerrant Bible topic, but there are many scriptures on this point.

You have done me a great service in helping me to rethink my spiritual journey. There is no lovingkindness here. There is only the subversive and antagonistic ‘king of the castle’ game of the Catholic convert. I will pray for your sad soul.

I am sad that you were hurt in the process of your explorations and thinkings aloud, and to the extent that I have contributed to that, I ask forgiveness.

I’m gone.

You will stay to work out your salvation in your own charming and blinkered way.

Perhaps you can abandon the forum as a path toward your goal, but even as you yourself wrote, we are members one of another, so in some manner, we will all be working out our salvation together!

 

[lak611]

What makes you think that Jesus did not recognize his own divinity until he was on the cross? Why did he make so many statements to the contrary?

I am especially struck by this verse.
Joh 8:58

(CEV) Jesus answered, “I tell you for certain that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am.”

(DRB) Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.

(ESV) Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

(KJV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

(MKJV) Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!

(MSG) “Believe me,” said Jesus, “I am who I am long before Abraham was anything.”

(NASB) Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

(NET) Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”

 

[Cranch]

…As a Christian I am not bound by this belief, I will not eat Christ’s (literal) body, I am not interested in eating his transubstantiated flesh (which is itself but a symbol of the literal flesh and blood), but I do accept that the bread and wine we offer during the Eucharist, through Him, with Him and in Him, in memory of the death *he freely accepted, *represent his flesh and blood.

Do you think Jesus the man, before recognising His own Divinity on the cross, had any concept of transubstantiation when, 2000 years ago, he commanded us to drink and eat his body? He did not. Therefore how did he assume we were going to eat his flesh and body literally down through the ages?

Transubstantiation, as a concept, is a device of man and not of the Scriptures, whatever Jesus or the apostles are reported to have said about what we should eat and drink in His memory. It is the memory of His sacrifice that matters.

There is so much that is wrong here. In another post you mention a bishop/spiritual director and a monsignor. If these people are not instructing you in a proper understanding of and belief in the Real Presence, you are being extremely ill-served in your exploration of Catholicism. Find some orthodox Catholics to better help you on your journey and pray for humility. May God lead you into all truth.

 

[Spirithound]

So everything is true, except the things that are not true?

Regarding the Old Testament Law, there is morality, and there is ceremony. Morality represents the very nature of God, and so it can’t change. Ceremony, which includes the kosher laws, punishments, Sabbath laws, and probably a few other categories are not part of God’s nature, but how we relate to God. Check out Acts 15 (I think). It’s the Council of Jerusalem, and the kosher laws were repealed. Over the centuries, the Church has used her authority to modify the ceremonial laws as we find more efficient ways to worship.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

There is so much that is wrong here. In another post you mention a bishop/spiritual director and a monsignor. If these people are not instructing you in a proper understanding of and belief in the Real Presence, you are being extremely ill-served in your exploration of Catholicism. Find some orthodox Catholics to better help you on your journey and pray for humility. May God lead you into all truth.

I have been fortunate to find three remarkable men who, within the context of our cultures and traditions in Southern Africa, are able to make sense out of dogma and doctrine. I emphasise the word *context *here, because it is a word that is used often, both with regard to Biblical interpretations - given what we know now about our multiverse (see Hubble photos) - and to how we behave within very complex communities (South Africa has the highest Gini coefficient in the world - that is the highest discrepancy between the rich and the poor).

One is a Bishop of 82, retired and respected, a scholar; the second is a Monsignor and canon lawyer of 64; the third is an eminent Jesuit scholar and HIV activist and colleague, at the age of 78 still pounding the globe, doing all he can for woman and children in this HIV/AIDS era.

It is not for me to question what they require of me, how they help me to interpret the Bible and its scholars, whether I move into a theological phase, or into a spiritual phase. They were all trained in the old tradition, pre-Vatican II, and yet have moved (perhaps somewhat by force of circumstance) out of the older paradigm and into the new. I must trust them, and I do. Absolutely.

I will not accept that I am being ill-served by my mentors, who are truly Christian, who truly walk with Christ and *Abba *Father, who live in the divine Presence of God in exceedingly trying circumstances.

My other choice is the Monastery up the road, to which some are drawn. It is exceptionally conservative, still uses the Latin rite, and is generally anathema to most clerics and other religious in the region. It does not know that Vatican II happened.

My mentors are beloved of Christ, without doubt. I do not know how you define orthodox, or how we would test ‘perfect orthodoxy’ among the millions of Catholic clerics and religious world-wide. Do you think that Catholic Christians in North America have the same teachings as those in Africa, as those in Indonesia, as those who are new Catholics in China?

Please think about it: move out of your own mental landscape, and imagine if a rickshaw driver in Burma, going to church in a land that is essentially Buddhist, can have the same understandings as you; or whether his priest is perfectly orthodox.

You *must *take account of cultural context, and the mental landscape within which people struggle to understand what is taught, never mind the struggle of those who are teaching.

I am still struggling with the idea that our discussions about inerrancy settle on matters such as whether sacrificial meat can be eaten afterwards. Here, in Africa, do you think that starving people, with few animals left, and no maize coming on, are going to make a sacrifice for rain (we are in the midst of flooding in some areas, and drought in others), and then throw the carcass away to rot?

And how do I understand our God in terms of the Hubble photographs of an ancient and utterly magnificent Universe? To what extent are we tying our God to this small planet which may be dying? Has the Church taken into account in any way the new ideas that must be derived from what we see with our eyes, before us?

What a magnificent God, if He as Creator made this universe of universes (multiverse)! Do our minds and eyes stay rigorously fixed on Biblical teachings and insights, reaching back 2000 years, because the Vatican pronounces?

Or do we read and observe and understand and make greater insights into the lessons of old? To do so would not diminish God, Christ or the Holy Spirit in any way, but would help humanity to perceive them in their true splendour and might.

I am too too aware of my need for humility: it is one of my most ardent prayers. But at least I know that I need to be more humble. And I would never insist that the authority I perceive to be correct should be globally and perfectly applied.

Come to think of it, it may just be that my three beloved mentors are correct, and you had better check yours out? Within your own context of course.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I do not disagree with you that his human nature may have gradually grasped the depth of divinity. Maybe my personal view is not consistent with teaching here also,but it seems to me that “he grew in understanding” as it says in Luke.

I think you have phrased it beautifully! It is clear that he studied in the Temple, from the one brief snapshot we have of Jesus growing up. What did he do after his Bar Mizvah? As a would-be Catholic I have been taught to understand that he went into the desert (ie a lonely place) often, as was his nature all his life, to be in intimate communion with God his Father. Prayer, meditation, contemplation, talking with his Father formed a great part of the life he lived in public before his death.

guanophore:
Perhaps you have faithfully shared with us what you were taught. However, it seems that Jesus recognized his full humanity and divinity long before the last supper. And in fact, the statement to which you refer was made prior to that time, according to the gospel account. I would also contend that Jesus did not fall into despair. Since He was one with the father, He would not be able to despair. If by that you mean give up complete hope. But that is related to Him never being separated from the Father even while He bore our sins on the cross.

If we believe that he was never separated from the Father, even while he bore our sins - and should therefore, as a man, in theory have been separated from God’s grace -surely this dilutes the awesome sacrifice, *the death he willingly accepted? *

He carried the burden of mankind’s sin, all of it, past, present and future. If he carried it in the presence of His Father, but sort of off-loaded some of the burden because he was himself divine, what can we say about the crucifixion? What can we say about Christ’s agony. I find it hard to believe that he was simply reciting the Psalm to keep his mind busy while he died, or that he was simply fulfilling the prophesy of the Old Testament and so had to say what he said, do what he did.

This was an act, a supremely powerful act, surely, on Christ’s part for our salvation. Advice please.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I do not disagree with you that his human nature may have gradually grasped the depth of divinity. Maybe my personal view is not consistent with teaching here also,but it seems to me that “he grew in understanding” as it says in Luke.

I think you have phrased it beautifully! It is clear that he studied in the Temple, from the one brief snapshot we have of Jesus growing up. What did he do after his Bar Mizvah? As a would-be Catholic I have been taught to understand that he went into the desert (ie a lonely place) often, as was his nature all his life, to be in intimate communion with God his Father. Prayer, meditation, contemplation, talking with his Father formed a great part of the life he lived in public before his death.

Perhaps you have faithfully shared with us what you were taught. However, it seems that Jesus recognized his full humanity and divinity long before the last supper. And in fact, the statement to which you refer was made prior to that time, according to the gospel account. I would also contend that Jesus did not fall into despair. Since He was one with the father, He would not be able to despair. If by that you mean give up complete hope. But that is related to Him never being separated from the Father even while He bore our sins on the cross.

If we believe that he was never separated from the Father, even while he bore our sins - and should therefore, as a man, in theory have been separated from God’s grace -surely this dilutes the awesome sacrifice, *the death he willingly accepted? *

He carried the burden of mankind’s sin, all of it, past, present and future. If he carried it in the presence of His Father, but sort of off-loaded some of the burden because he was himself divine, what can we say about the crucifixion? What can we say about Christ’s agony. I find it hard to believe that he was simply reciting the Psalm to keep his mind busy while he died, or that he was simply fulfilling the prophesy of the Old Testament and so had to say what he said, do what he did.

This was an act, a supremely powerful act, surely, on Christ’s part for our salvation. Advice please.

I have also checked again the Nicene Creed (traditional) and the Apostles’ Creed. The latter reads:

[He] suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried.
The third day he rose from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

My understanding has always been that during the days he lay dead, he has descended into hell (in the old terminology). Where do we put this idea?

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

I will not accept that I am being ill-served by my mentors, who are truly Christian, who truly walk with Christ and *Abba *Father, who live in the divine Presence of God in exceedingly trying circumstances.

Good for you! Also good to see you posting.

What a magnificent God, if He as Creator made this universe of universes (multiverse)! Do our minds and eyes stay rigorously fixed on Biblical teachings and insights, reaching back 2000 years, because the Vatican pronounces?

As with most things catholic, yes, and no. Yes, we must remain fixed on the deposit of faith that has been given to us. the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and it is from that foundation that we must explore and integrate all that is new.

Or do we read and observe and understand and make greater insights into the lessons of old? To do so would not diminish God, Christ or the Holy Spirit in any way, but would help humanity to perceive them in their true splendour and might.

Do you not think it is possible to do both?

Blessings

May you reap what you sow!

 

[guanophore]

If we believe that he was never separated from the Father, even while he bore our sins - and should therefore, as a man, in theory have been separated from God’s grace -surely this dilutes the awesome sacrifice, *the death he willingly accepted? *

Perhaps my understanding is immature, but although he paid the penalty of our sins, Himself becoming a holocaust sacrifice, he did not “bear” them in the sense that they were part of himself.
If that were so, the sin would have come between his human and divine natures, and the Son and the Father, which is not possible.

Col 2:13-15
13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.

Jesus made it possible for the penalty to be cancelled against us, by paying it himself. What got nailed to the cross was the “warrant” against us, for our sins. This He carried in his own body, so that He could bear it on our behalf. If Jesus is not separated by sin from Divinity through His death, it makes his sacrifice no less supreme, does it?

Col 2:13-15
13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.

He carried the burden of mankind’s sin, all of it, past, present and future. If he carried it in the presence of His Father, but sort of off-loaded some of the burden because he was himself divine, what can we say about the crucifixion? What can we say about Christ’s agony. I find it hard to believe that he was simply reciting the Psalm to keep his mind busy while he died, or that he was simply fulfilling the prophesy of the Old Testament and so had to say what he said, do what he did.

This was an act, a supremely powerful act, surely, on Christ’s part for our salvation. Advice please.

His recitation of the psalm was a reflection of the Jewish style of prayer. By praying that line, he was within Himself praying the entire passage. Those standing near would understand it that way. It is a psalm about the crucifixion, and Jesus, by taking it to Himself in that moment, affirmed that it was a prophesy about Him. It does not necessarily mean that he was literally forsaken by God, which we know did not happen. However, often we feel forsaken of God. Our felt experience of abandonment should not be construed as being the same as being in actuality abandoned by God. If Jesus can say to us “no one can snatch them out of my hand” how much more was He in that moment of supreme suffering in the hands of His father?

 

[Cranch]

I have been fortunate to find three remarkable men who, within the context of our cultures and traditions in Southern Africa, are able to make sense out of dogma and doctrine.…

I will not accept that I am being ill-served by my mentors, who are truly Christian, who truly walk with Christ and *Abba *Father, who live in the divine Presence of God in exceedingly trying circumstances.

You write a lot about God’s Presence. You seem to use this phrase in reference to various aspects of your (or other’s) faith journey. That’s fine. Understand, however that the specific term “Real Presence” has one meaning in a Catholic (and even other Christian) context: the fact that Jesus is really, actually present in the Eucharist. This is not to be understood as merely symbolic. The Church’s catechism teaches: **1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

**1375 **It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

**1381 **“That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on *Luke *22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’”

If this central truth of the Faith is not being affirmed and taught to you by your spiritual advisors, I repeat my misgivings.

…I do not know how you define orthodox, or how we would test ‘perfect orthodoxy’ among the millions of Catholic clerics and religious world-wide. Do you think that Catholic Christians in North America have the same teachings as those in Africa, as those in Indonesia, as those who are new Catholics in China?

Absolutely! The Church is “one, holy, catholic and Apostolic”; not to mention multi-lingual in her teaching and Scripture. And if the people can’t read, their priests can. Obviously there are regional practices and special concerns. But the Deposit of Faith is singular. The catechism again:775 …The Church’s first purpose is to be the sacrament of the inner union of men with God. Because men’s communion with one another is rooted in that union with God, the Church is also the sacrament of the unity of the human race. In her, this unity is already begun, since she gathers men “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues”; at the same time, the Church is the “sign and instrument” of the full realization of the unity yet to come.

**830 **…“Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession…

Come to think of it, it may just be that my three beloved mentors are correct, and you had better check yours out? Within your own context of course.

I rely on Apostolic Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. 834 Particular Churches** are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.”** “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”
God bless.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Cranch, I thank you for this very helpful and full explication, although it is off-topic.

I shall certainly consult my Bishop, my canon lawyer, and my eminent Jesuit colleague about your instruction, and ask for their reactions and observations.

I assume that you are correct at the macro-level of Church teaching, and I assume very strongly that they are within the safety of orthodoxy, as they are very orthodox clerics. It may be however that their micro-interpretations, being in Africa, differ somewhat from yours in certain aspects.

I agree with you that the rules about belief in and the actual reality of transubstantiation are of ancient origin, and have no doubt my mentors are in accordance with the orthodox position in this regard.

I despise the insinuation - I do not know who you are - that your ‘instruction’ on this matter will save my bacon when there are others here far more capable of doing that. I have no doubt about that because I have no reason whatsoever to doubt.

If there are any errors of understanding, they are mine alone.

 

[Cranch]

Cranch, I thank you for this very helpful and full explication, although it is off-topic.

I shall certainly consult my Bishop, my canon lawyer, and my eminent Jesuit colleague about your instruction, and ask for their reactions and observations.

I assume that you are correct at the macro-level of Church teaching, and I assume very strongly that they are within the safety of orthodoxy, as they are very orthodox clerics. It may be however that their micro-interpretations, being in Africa, differ somewhat from yours in certain aspects.

I agree with you that the rules about belief in and the actual reality of transubstantiation are of ancient origin, and have no doubt my mentors are in accordance with the orthodox position in this regard.

I despise the insinuation - I do not know who you are - that your ‘instruction’ on this matter will save my bacon when there are others here far more capable of doing that. I have no doubt about that because I have no reason whatsoever to doubt.

If there are any errors of understanding, they are mine alone.

Carol-
It’s sometimes difficult to carry on these discussions without the benefit of facial expressions and tone of voice. Being somewhat naturally cynical, I “hear” a good dose of sarcasm in your second sentence above. I hope I’m wrong and you sincerely meant what you wrote. All I know of your spiritual advisors is exactly nothing, except perhaps through the reflection of whatever fruit their instruction may have borne in you. Your troubling comments in post #22 of this thread caused me to speculate on the possible inadequacy of that instruction. Your last sentence above is reassuring in that regard. I certainly do not mean to disparage anyone unjustly. I have no stake in this (other than a desire to see you know the Truth) and I make no insinuations. My ‘instruction’ as you archly call it, is not mine at all. All the numbered paragraphs in my post are quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. God bless.
(My apologies Frankk for this latest foray off-topic.)

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Genealogy of Christ

First Series

1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esron
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David

Second Series

1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezechias
11. Manasses
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias

Third Series - - - - - - (corrected)

1. Jechonias- - - - - 1. Salathiel
2. Salathiel- - - - - - 2. Zorobabel
3. Zorobabel- - - - - 3. Abiud
4. Abiud- - - - - - - - 4. Eliacim
5. Eliacim- - - - - - - 5.Azor
6. Azor- - - - - - - - - 6. Sadoe
7. Sadoe- - - - - - - - 7. Achim
8. Achim- - - - - - - - 8. Eliud
9. Eliud- - - - - - - - - 9. Eleazar
10. Eleazar - - - - - 10. Mathan
11. Mathan - - - - - 11. Jacob
12. Jacob - - - - - - 12. Joseph
13. Joseph - - - - - 13. MARY
14. Jesus - - - - - - 14. Jesus

If you look at series two and three, you will see an editorial cheat, namely, that Jechonias is counted twice, firstly at the end of series two, and secondly at the beginning of series three.
The failure of the fourteen-count has been long known, and this attempt to gloss it over is shameful.
If though, attention is paid to the words in Latin, it is NOT specified that Joseph was the HUSBAND of MARY, but that he was her MAN. This can also be read as FATHER.
The Nestorians make this assumption, which serves two corrections.
1/ The series are thus corrected to exactly fourteen each, and
2/ The Matthean genalogy is then specifically a Marian genealogy, as opposed to the Josephan genealogy in Luke, hence they need not be similar.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Metaphor differs from myth. And that is not what the Canadian Baptist Church (very conservative) teaches. Christian scholars, philosophers and even Catholic religious (see Nolan, Nouwen, Vanier, de Muelenaere and Borg eg) are suggesting that we need to see the Bible within our current context, within the paradigm of a system of multiverses in which Planet Earth is simply a miniscule pimple of no consequence. All great religions change: without growth they die. If we chain our God (made in the image of man) to a tiny and insignificant part of the multiverse (the infinite and eternal bundle of universes within which we find ourselves - check Hubble photos for starters) our faith, our spirituality, will surely die.

God is not made in the image of man - non-revealed ideas of God are. This is why it is of crucial importance that Christian faith takes its rise from a Divine revelation.​

As for Earth - astronomically considered, it is of very slight importance. But that is no objection to believing that the One Unique God became a man on this planet 2000 years ago and is the only Saviour of mankind. The “particularity” & “parochiality” & “provinciality” of that claim is not an objection to its being true: not as a metaphor, not as a myth, not as a fiction, but as a (grossly offensive ?) fact. There is only one Saviour, only one Divine Incarnation, only one God-man.

What makes Earth important is not man, not us; but the God-man Jesus Christ.

Some “pimple” ##

*Everything is relative; and relativity changes constantly. Speaking of Einstein, I quote: *

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.

*Sorry, I cannot agree to be uncurious, not to challenge that which needs to be challenged. Do not slavishly chain yourself. We live by faith, and as best we can, by the faith that is spelled out by the Catholic heirarchy, interpreting as best it can through the ages, God’s intentions for humanity, and Christ’s mission. Of course we must argue about what scripture means. *Or does this mean I cannot be a Catholic Christian?

Christianity - in all its manifestations - is one of the great global religions.I have learned that when people believe, find comfort and solace and healing, have a sense of the sacred, the holy, it is not for me to say that their culture and belief system is pagan and unworthy. Think again on this one, and note too that Vatican II specifically emphasised that Moslems, inter alia, are not to be ignored when it comes to salvation, right up front.

1. What we think of other religions is neither here nor there - they are good insofar as they reflect Christ the Light of the world; & no further. Some of them,such as that of the Aztecs, with its hecatombs of human sacrifices, are probably demonic. And we owe no respect to religions - dead or alive - that give grounds for thinking they are demonic in origin.​

“The holy” is a very troublesome category, because the holy is not always the ethical - Asherah had her qedeshoth, her “holy women”: they were sacred prostitutes. Holiness is quite compatible with inhumane behaviour: unless its model is the Holiness of Christ, which is entirely ethical.

As for Vatican II - it also reaffirmed the centrality of Christ, & in consequence, the centrality of the Church. That is the context within which it discusses other religions. Any good there is in other religions is from God the Father of Jesis Christ - & as God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, definitively, finally, & for all time, they cannot contradict that full & final Revelation. Insofar as they do so, they lack finality, or, are positively false.

People often say that all religions agree - if they do, why (for instance) does Mohammed reverse the teaching on marriage of Jesus ? All religions do not agree - far from it. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Oh boy. This is the kind of comment that forces one out of the Catholic Answers Forum. It is patronising, unhelpful, and essentially insulting. I am a learner, a quester as I prefer to call it. I would prefer to be a Catholic, and struggle hard every day for appropriate but not knee-jerk understanding and revelation. I would prefer not to have to endure this kind of unnecessary confrontation and obfuscation when I think out loud.

(1) My posting was not a matter of personal opinion, but considered analysis on the basis of my reading, learning and contemplation in matters of sociology, anthropology and science, and a life lived globally.

(2) I do not tend to write incoherently, although one of my University professors in Canada noted that fuzzy writing indicates fuzzy thinking. My thinking is increasingly fuzzed by Forum anomalies, and perhaps this shows as incoherence. However, I understand what I am saying:

• God created
• He did so in such a way that shifts and changes in natural laws are not possible: they are immutable as far as we understand them now
• God is not bound by his own laws, but has established them for our sake. He does not interevene directly in the workings of the material world.
• Their immutability means that bread and wine cannot be changed into flesh and blood (I know this consideration has ramifications for understanding miracles, but that is another discussion)
  (3) I did not say or imply that God is governed by the natural laws which He set in place. He is of course NOT governed by those laws. He established them, but has clearly chosen not to intervene, shift, change or adapt them, as far as we know now. In other words, God cannot be expected to halt global warming: it is not in His nature to do so. (This does not preclude the idea that He created an automatic self-healing system within the planet itself, independent of humankinds’ activities.)

We live in an infinite and eternal complex of an infinite number of infinite and eternal number of universes - a multiverse. The existence of the multiverse cannot yet be proven, but is suggested by scientific anomalies such as the lack of fit between Newtonian physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity. You referred yourself to our relative incapacity now to understand the hidden mysteries.

Natural disasters that cause human suffering – the Asian tsunami, global plagues like HIV, South American mudslides, Icelandic explosions, Swiss avalanches, South African rockfalls, droughts and floods, cataclysms on the ocean floor, flooding as a result of global warming, Chinese mine collapses, and Pacific and Caribbean volcanic eruptions – are the result of physical, chemical and other natural laws at work. They happen in accordance with God’s absolute creation principles. Inevitably, they cause anguish and at times colossal suffering. They do so in our day; they have always done so; and they will continue to do so.

They are the workings of God’s principles, and not of God himself. He did not make them happen - it is not useful to ask *How could God have done this to me? *He did not.

1. I have based my post on my knowledge and understanding of science (not physics alone - but the complex interrelationships between various sciences). God is of course not bound to follow his own laws of creation, but has chosen - because he is omniscient and omnipresent and omnibenevolent - that they remain constant, for our sakes.

This means, for me, that transubtantiation is not possible. I would not call this absurd; I would not call people who believe this absurd; I would not call you absurd; I would prefer it if you would not refer to my hard-won understandings as absurd.

Blessings

How does transubstantiation violate physics (or any of the laws in nature) ? It has nothing to do with physics, or any of the processes of nature - because it is a fact of metaphysics.​

 

[c659smith]

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

---

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

---

We have dealt with this elsewhere. I was surprised to find that there is no mention of the miracle, or its site, on the website of the town. What is mentioned is that the soldier who thrust the spear into Jesus on the cross came from this town. But no mention of miracle.

Blessings.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

---

 

[c659smith]

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

LANCIANO: The Eucharistiche Miracle

The church of St Francesco, which houses these relics of the Eucharistic Miracle, has an austere, rectangular façade, in ashlar blocks, whose form is emphasised by a tall plinth in the centre of which there is an ancient Gothic portal. The bronze door was sculpted by Tommaso Sigismondi in 1975.
Other Burgundian elements can still be seen in the apse area and on the bell tower, decorated in majolica. The single nave interior has a sumptuous Baroque with walnut pulpit, and a painted and gilt carved organ, a gift of Clement XIV.

The web site on the 1st line will get you to the site, along with numerous others. There are hundreds of web sites on this subject.

You have to look real hard not to find info. on the internet in reference to this town and the miracle.

Even though it has been several hundred years after the miracle the flesh and blood has not turned to dust. people ask about science and receive an area where science and religion agree and still people disbelieve.

Kinda like the pharisee’s in the last days of Christ. Christ performed numerous miracles, taught that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood shall have eternal life. Whoever does not eats His flesh and drink His blood shall have no life within him.

Jesus told his Apostles to perform and repeat this sacrafice in remebrance of Him. As a Christian read the bible and you tell me that Jesus was kidding around in this area. Throughout the new Testament this was repeated over and over again. Many a follower and listener rejected Christ beacuse of this teaching.

This was not a Parable but a satement by our Lord. yet others want to refutiate this.

As a Catholic and Christian I celebrate Easter every Sunday I get to be at the Last Supper, His Cruciifiction, celebrate in Christ’s Resurrection, and my and yes our ability to once again to be in communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Mass)

The Blessed Trinity --explain how this is possible–I know this to be because of sacred teachings, traditions, and oops you will not find it in the bible and yes it is difflcult to comprehend. Now I believe that all Christians believe in the Trinity --ever wonder whose sacred teachings this came from.

I will say this, there are many things in this world I cannot explain or understand so for me to even think I could understand everything, comprehend, or reason what is Divine is beyond my puny mortal mind and that his where faith comes in.

The Apostles whom lived and followed Jesus for three years did not understand what Jesus was teaching at times like the destroying and rebuilding of the Temple in 3 days till they witnessed the resurrection and probably many of his followers never understood.

The resurrection is it earthly possible, to ascend in heaven is it possible, to have the ability to get back the grace we lost from God possible. faith, faith, faith.