James, Brother of Jesus?

[Bill_Pick]

Tanner=Who was the first person to call Mary ‘Blessed’?
It was GOD Himself through the Angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28. If GOD said “Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee”, in the same verse, could Mary have been ‘full of grace’ or ‘blessed’ or have the ‘Lord with her’, had she been stained by original sin? If you say ‘yes’ to that one, then please explain your answer to me?
By being “full of Grace”, and being told “the Lord is with thee”, is she not higher than Eve who was never told these things? If so, was Eve created with original sin? No? Then why do you think Mary, who is higher than Eve, was born with original sin? Wouldn’t having original sin make Mary lower than Eve? Eve is a “type” of Mary, who is the “antitype”. “Types” are always inferior to “antitypes” and always point to a much greater reality, and never to a symbol.
GOD will not join Himself with anything defiled, Wis 1:4-5, Isa 59:1-4,
Rom 1:18-32, Rev 21:27.

 

[erikd]

Hi ericd -
If you have really invested 30 years actually reading and studying the Bible and you still believe the Catholic teachings, I don’t think I can change your mind, especially within the limitations of this forum.

I did not read through the whole history of this thread. I happened to see your note and felt compelled to write because I was also a “cradle Catholic” and came to a different conclusion after actually reading and studying the Bible outside of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

May God bless you and guide you in your search for truth!

By the way, have you checked out the faith tracts on this website? It may help you to clear up some issues in regards to the Catholic faith. All of them use the Sacred Scriptures to clarify the Church’s teachings and doctrines. Let me know what you think.

 

[Tanner9188]

Nice dance around the issue, Tanner - but you’re avoiding the challenge I issued:
IF you believe the lies that freedomwriter posted about the church, then PROVE them.

1. Irenaeus doesn’t mention Peter in his list of Popes.
2. The Catholic Church was started around the year A.D. 590

Prove this with historical means. I can’t *wait *to read your response!

How does one prove history to people that “parrot” what they are told; and are not interested in the facts? Not much room dialogue or debate. I concede; I declare you an earthly winner.

 

[adrift]

How does one prove history to people that “parrot” what they are told; and are not interested in the facts? Not much room dialogue or debate. I concede; I declare you an earthly winner.

One does it by providing a source and not just a flapping keyboard. Obviously you are not interested in fact or you do not have any to back up your claim. It seems that the “parrot” is you.

 

[adrift]

An answer to many of the questions that have arisen here was provided by the late Father Most.

It is to long to post so anyone who is truly interested in truth and not spitting out old prejudices should read it.

Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Further we have just given extensive evidence to show that regardless of
whether or not the writers were translating,they often used Greek words in
such a way that to understand them we must look to the underlying Hebrew.
This is specially true of Paul in spite of Meier’s claim that Paul was not
translating and that he knew “James the brother of the Lord” in person.

 

[paul_c]

**I have read and Catholics, in defense of their faith, in my opinion and observation, conveniently use Aramaic when it fits their position and Greek, like the Septuagint, when it fits their need to defend; whereas we accept the the fact that we were given the Hebrew, Greek and a small smattering of the Aramaic; with the belief that the Holy Spirit, who is the Author of Scripture used the Greek in the NT and Hebrew in the NT for specific reasons. We accept and don’t make excuses for changing the language given to make something fit God’s word.

In relation to the topic; the burden of proof is on the Catholic; not the other way around as you would like to have it because the overwhelming evidence and plain reading of Scripture says Jesus had brothers and sisters. However; what proof do we have of the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity from Scripture? Good luck on bringing evidence on this one against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion given the context of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

You claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives or brothers united with Christ (brethren), but also and does have the literal meaning as a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that leaves any doubt that they were His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

May God bless all of you and give you the courage to see His truth on this topic and may we lay it to rest.**

I notice that you consistently call Jesus’s brothers, blood half-siblings. I assume you mean that they are Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, since there is no record of Mary having a second marriage. Such a position would not conflict with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The fact is, there is no evidence that contradicts the Catholic Tradition that Mary was ever-virgin. Could Joseph have been a widower with Children? Maybe. We can’t tell for sure, nor does it matter, really. My personal feeling on the situation is that the 4 “brothers” were actually cousins of Jesus, son’s of Joseph’s brother (Alpheus or Clopas). But you are right that I can’t prove it. But there is 2000 years of tradition that Mary was ever-virgin. I believe that this must be true, because otherwise, why would the tradition have been propagated if it wasn’t the truth?

 

[jlhargus]

JL: It is never okay to add or subtract from the word of God, Whether by word or epistle, 2Thes2:14. By the way, if the Holy Spirit by the church can infallibly discern and faithfully preserve the written Apostolic Tradition of Scripture, without distortion. Then that same Holy Spirit can certainly by the same church preserve that Apostolic oral Tradition, without distortion. It is that same Holy Spirit who is the origin and acts thru both the church and scripture. Who outside of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see the Watch Tower translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men. So we see even the written word doesn’t guarantee, there is no distortion, not to mention misinterpretation.

TANNER: What are those oral traditions spoken of by Paul that existed at the time he wrote the epistle; not the man-made ones a century afterward?

JL: Are you talking about the Tradition of the TRINTIY 325-381AD, Tradition of the canon of the bible 382AD. By the way what would have been the sole authority before the canon was finalized? Where does your sole authority tell you which books are inspired? The answer, you only have the correct NT thru Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church.

So why has your particular Protestant religious tradition removed books form the OT? What authority decided your 66 books? Was your particular Protestant religious group around at that time? Or do you just accept those 66 books as a handed down tradition of man, made doctrine of God? Why has your particular Protestant religion taken away from the word of God, by abandoning Apostolic Tradition, which Paul speaks of in 2Thes2:14 to which He called you by OUR GOSPEL, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, whether BY WORD, OR OUR EPISTLE.

TANNER: Your logic or lack of and argument in defense of your Church adding to Scripture is no different than the JW’s, Mormon’s or any other religion.

JL The Catholic Church has not added to scripture, she has defined which books are inspired and which are not, using Apostolic Tradition. Just as she settled the dispute about circumcision in Acts 15. As that letter sent out from that authoritative Church council says in [Acts15:28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST, AND TO US, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;] The Church speaks with the authority of God, when in council or when the pope speaks as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals. As scripture tells us in Mt16:19&18:18, whatsoever you bind or loose on earth will be bond and loosed in heaven.

TANNER: One could also say the same “who outside the Catholic Church can not see the Catholic translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men”. All I’m saying is that your logic is completely flawed and the very same arguments in defense of your religion can be made to defend another religion that, in my opinion has added to God’s word via extra special revelation in written and oral tradition.

JL: Obviouly you have never seen a Catholic bible, there is no difference in Catholic TRANSLATIONS and Protestant translations. Actually there is co-operation in most new translations. I was raised on the KJV. There is a vast difference with the JW TRANSLATION, but maybe you are not familiar with the NWT either.

 

[Tanner9188]

I have no idea what this post means in response to my post.

I asked where in 2 Macc, as you claim, the inspired writer says that he’s not inspired.
Chapter and verse, please. (BTW, I’m not necessarily doubting you–I’d just like to see for myself. My guess is that it’s a man-made, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation you’ve given to one verse, but let’s see.)

2 Maccabees 15:38,39 "So these things being done with relation to Nicanor and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well and as it becometh the history,** it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me."

In other words; I’m done speaking; but if it is not completely accurate, then please forgive me. (Modern translation by me)**

****If you would like to see a host of other errors for yourself, then click this link;
justforcatholics.org/a109.htm I know some are going to accuse me of posting “anti-Catholic” link; but I give this to you in good faith. If you don’t want to learn more, than don’t click the link.

 

[jlhargus]

JL: [Timothy received the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands, (holy orders, in apostolic succession.)

Tanner: Where does the Bible say “Holy Orders” and “Apostolic succession”?

JL: Right after it says TRINITY. Show me in you sole authority where anyone was not ordained by and apostle or one whom the apostles ordained.

The sacrament of Holy Orders, ordination, by laying of hands gives the GIFT of the Holy Spirit to enable an ordained minister to fulfill his mission. [2 TIM 1:6 …stir up the GIFT OF GOD IN YOU BY THE PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS 7 GOD HAS GIVEN US the SPIRIT OF POWER.

[2Tm4:2 PREACH THE WORD; be prepared in season and out of season; CORRECT, REBUKE and ENCOURAGE—WITH great patience and CAREFUL INSTRUCTION]

1Tm5:1 Do not REBUKE an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers,

Titus 1:5 For this I left you in Crete that you should set in order …and ORDAIN ELDERS in EVERY CITY AS I APPOINTED YOU.

Titus1:7 For A BISHOP must be blameless, as THE STEWARD OF GOD; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 HOLDING FAST THE FAITHFUL WORD AS HE HATH BEEN TAUGHT, that he may be able BY SOUND DOCTRINE both TO EXHORT and TO CONVINCE the gainsayers.

Titus1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore, REBUKE them SHARPLY, so that they will be sound in the faith]

Titus2:1 But SPEAK THOU the THINGS WHICH BECOME SOUND DOCTRINE: 2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

[Titus2:15 THESE, then, are the THINGS YOU SHOULD TEACH. ENCOURAGE and REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Do not let anyone despise you.]

Acts 14:23 when they had ORDAINED elders IN EVERY CHURCH and prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.

Acts 20:28 Take heed of yourself, and the flock over which the HOLY SPIRIT has MADE you OVERSEERS TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD purchased with his own blood,

1 Tin 4:13 Till I come attend to READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE 14 Do not neglect THE GIFT in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH THE LAYING ON OF the HANDS of the presbytery 16 TAKE HEED to yourself TO THE DOCTRINE continue in them for in doing this you shalt both SAVE yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.]

1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE.

 

[jlhargus]

TANNER: In the end; the only reliable source of God’s word are the 66 books that we know are inspired and sufficient in practice and faith and able to bring salvation;

JL: Where does it say that in any of those 66 books? What authority told you those books and only those books are inspired? Did your particular Protestant religion set that 66 book canon? Or did another group, with whom you do not agree, set it for you?

TANNER: thus we have come full circle to Sola Scriptura.

JL: No, sola scriptura has broken the circle with men trying to build a tower to heaven, ending in a tower of babel, confusing the one faith language into myriads of contentious contradicting faith languages. Scattering people of faith into myriads of groups, no longer understanding each other, in a never ending split after split. Tell me how many groups has sola scriptura brought together? How many has it divided and still doing so? The Holy Spirit gathers into ONE, he does not scatter into thousands. Sola scriptura still continues to be one of Satan’s greatest victories, every dividing.

JL: 1Tm 3:15 (Tanner: DISTORTED) JL: Why just because you say it’s distorted, show me evidence, here I will post 1TM3:15 from the KJV, [1Tm3:15 But 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 TRUTH.] Tell me can an invisible Chruch be a pillar and ground of TRUTH?

Whom did Paul check his teaching with to make sure he did not run in vain? [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.] Paul even checked his teaching with that One Catholic Apostolic Fellowship, SENT by our Lord Jesus Christ to TEACH ALL NATIONS till the end of the age, Mt28:16-20.

JL: As the pillar and ground of truth the church’s testimony is of no less value than scripture, because the Holy Spirit is the origin of both

Tanner: When did God say that?

JL: Don’t you accept 1Tm3:15 as part of the inspired word of God? That same authority the Church the pillar and ground of truth preserved without distortion those books you call your sole authority. [Acts15:28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST, AND TO US,]

What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter? Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.] 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctine men can devise through sola scriptura, the tridition of men made a doctrine of God around 1521 AD.]

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: It is never okay to add or subtract from the word of God, Whether by word or epistle, 2Thes2:14. By the way, if the Holy Spirit by the church can infallibly discern and faithfully preserve the written Apostolic Tradition of Scripture, without distortion. Then that same Holy Spirit can certainly by the same church preserve that Apostolic oral Tradition, without distortion. It is that same Holy Spirit who is the origin and acts thru both the church and scripture. Who outside of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see the Watch Tower translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men. So we see even the written word doesn’t guarantee, there is no distortion, not to mention misinterpretation.

TANNER: What are those oral traditions spoken of by Paul that existed at the time he wrote the epistle; not the man-made ones a century afterward?

JL: Are you talking about the Tradition of the TRINTIY 325-381AD, Tradition of the canon of the bible 382AD. By the way what would have been the sole authority before the canon was finalized? Where does your sole authority tell you which books are inspired? The answer, you only have the correct NT thru Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church.

So why has your particular Protestant religious tradition removed books form the OT? What authority decided your 66 books? Was your particular Protestant religious group around at that time? Or do you just accept those 66 books as a handed down tradition of man, made doctrine of God? Why has your particular Protestant religion taken away from the word of God, by abandoning Apostolic Tradition, which Paul speaks of in 2Thes2:14 to which He called you by OUR GOSPEL, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, whether BY WORD, OR OUR EPISTLE.

TANNER: Your logic or lack of and argument in defense of your Church adding to Scripture is no different than the JW’s, Mormon’s or any other religion.

JL The Catholic Church has not added to scripture, she has defined which books are inspired and which are not, using Apostolic Tradition. Just as she settled the dispute about circumcision in Acts 15. As that letter sent out from that authoritative Church council says in [Acts15:28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST, AND TO US, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;] The Church speaks with the authority of God, when in council or when the pope speaks as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals. As scripture tells us in Mt16:19&18:18, whatsoever you bind or loose on earth will be bond and loosed in heaven.

TANNER: One could also say the same “who outside the Catholic Church can not see the Catholic translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men”. All I’m saying is that your logic is completely flawed and the very same arguments in defense of your religion can be made to defend another religion that, in my opinion has added to God’s word via extra special revelation in written and oral tradition.

JL: Obviouly you have never seen a Catholic bible, there is no difference in Catholic TRANSLATIONS and Protestant translations. Actually there is co-operation in most new translations. I was raised on the KJV. There is a vast difference with the JW TRANSLATION, but maybe you are not familiar with the NWT either.

At least you attempted to refute and was charitable to…thank you for that; it is not been the norm from my experience here. but as usual most posts do not use Scripture in the correct contextual sense. It really saddens my heart to be here sometimes because when the Son sets one free; he is free indeed. My heart goes out to all of you.

 

[Tanner9188]

Well, let’s just be honest, Tanner. Anyone who quotes Scripture using chapter and verse is accepting an addition to Scripture. Chapter and verses were not part of the original manuscripts, but were added much, much later.

**
You don’t understand Jesus and his love. We have no original manuscripts.**

 

[Tanner9188]

**I’m leaving this post; so if you had questions that were left unanswered in your opinion, then accept my resignation as an apology in this thread. My heart really go out to all of you; may the Son set you free.

In Gods love!

Tanner**

 

[erikd]

**
You don’t understand Jesus and his love. We have no original manuscripts.**

That wasn’t very charitable.

 

[erikd]

**I’m leaving this post; so if you had questions that were left unanswered in your opinion, then accept my resignation as an apology in this thread. My heart really go out to all of you; may the Son set you free.

In Gods love!

Tanner**

My heart goes out to you too, Tanner. At the last day you will be standing in front of God, not Calvin.

 

[paul_c]

2 Maccabees 15:38,39 "So these things being done with relation to Nicanor and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well and as it becometh the history,** it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me."

In other words; I’m done speaking; but if it is not completely accurate, then please forgive me. (Modern translation by me)**

This is the NAb version of these verses:
37 Since Nicanor’s doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring my own story to an end here too.
38 If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
So the Author is being humble. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t inspired and it certainly doesn’t say, as you earlier claimed, that he admits he wasn’t inspired.

****If you would like to see a host of other errors for yourself, then click this link;
justforcatholics.org/a109.htm I know some are going to accuse me of posting “anti-Catholic” link; but I give this to you in good faith. If you don’t want to learn more, than don’t click the link.

Here are the host of "errors’ in the article you linked:

Question: In one of your articles you claim that the apocrypha contradict the Scripture. I do not see any contradictions.

Answer: Please take a second look and judge for yourself. Let’s take some examples, starting with the book of Sirach which teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins…Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).

Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

But Sirach teaches that honouring parents and giving alms atones for sin. Sirach teaches that a person can be justified by another method apart from substitutionary sacrifice.

Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law (honouring parents, etc.) which is directly refuted by the Bible: “A man is not justified by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16). In fact, the apostle Paul goes as far as saying that “if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (verse 21). If we could obtain righteousness by such things as obeying the commandment and doing charity, there would have been no need for Christ dying on the cross.

Similarly Tobit 12:9 states that “alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.” But the Bible states that “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Being assured by the Word of God that Christ’s blood really cleanses from all sin, we cannot accept that alms-giving is an a different way of purging sin. In fact the Bible makes it clear that ‘without the shedding of blood there is no remission’ (Hebrews 9:14). Tobit proposes an alternative way for purging sin apart from the shedding of blood.

Wisdom 8:19,20 is another contradiction between the apocrypha and Scripture. “For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin. “Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men… by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Romans 5:18, 19). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). The author of Wisdom believes he was an exception.

Sirach 12:4-7 advices, “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly; hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him… give unto the good, and help not the sinner.” This sound more like pagan philosophy rather than the teaching of God, “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you… Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back” (Luke 6:27,30). “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink;” (Romans 12:20, Proverbs 25:21).

There are also historical errors in the apocrypha. For example, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).

Surely the doctrinal and historical errors in the apocrypha are clear evidence against the divine inspiration of these books.

continued in next post

 

[paul_c]

continued from previous post
These arguments are in fact, pretty weak. Sirach and Tobit teach taht good works atone for sins. What did Jesus say when asked how a man could get to heaven: follow the commandments. In Matthew 25: 36-51, who were the men judged to be suitable for heaven: those that did acts of mercy for the least of our brothers. This is completely consistent with Sirach.

As for the Wisdom quotes: Here is the NAB translation of Wisdom 8:19-20:
19 Now, I was a well-favored child, and I came by a noble nature;
20 or rather, being noble, I attained an unsullied body.

What does this have to do with not being borm with original sin?

Finally, in Sirach 12 : 4-7 lets back up one line to get the context:
3 No good comes to him who gives comfort to the wicked, nor is it an act of mercy that he does.
4 Give to the good man, refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden, give nothing to the proud man.
5 No arms for combat should you give him, lest he use them against yourself;
6 With twofold evil you will meet for every good deed you do for him.
7 The Most High himself hates sinners, and upon the wicked he takes vengeance
As you can now see, he is not advocating doing evil to the sinner, he is recommending against giving support to a sinner who will abuse it .

Finally, there are apparent historical inconsistencies in Tobit, I grant you, but there are also inconsistencies between Chronicles and Kings, yet the divine inspiration of neither are in question and rightfully so. Tobit is not a history book, It is a religious novel which teaches morality.

Lastly, why are you reading all these Anti-Catholic Websites and bringing them here? Is it for us to convince you they are wrong? If so, why not just bring up the questions that are bothering you?

 

[PRmerger]

This is the NAb version of these verses:
37 Since Nicanor’s doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring my own story to an end here too.
38 If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
So the Author is being humble. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t inspired and it certainly doesn’t say, as you earlier claimed, that he admits he wasn’t inspired.

Indeed.

I wonder what Tanner’s response would be to this:
Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

It would seem that by the same logic the sacred author of Philippians is also not inspired.

 

[erikd]

Indeed.

I wonder what Tanner’s response would be to this:
Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

It would seem that by the same logic the sacred author of Philippians is also not inspired.

On post 567, Tanner said he’s leaving this thread.

 

[ppasa316]

Nice dance around the issue, Tanner - but you’re avoiding the challenge I issued:
IF you believe the lies that freedomwriter posted about the church, then PROVE them.

1. Irenaeus doesn’t mention Peter in his list of Popes.
2. The Catholic Church was started around the year A.D. 590

Prove this with historical means. I can’t *wait *to read your response!

Freedomwriter has already proved them. I have checked everyone of the passages and commentaries and found him to be correct. But you seem to be telling the liew. You just hate to admit the truth.