I
- Status
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: I would choose the Catholic Church, over my opinion always. That Chruch whom Christ promised to lead into all truth, and Paul tells us is the pillar and ground of truth.
If you had a dilemma and it come down to scripture vs. Chuch Smith, which do you choose?
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Well I am satisfied you have no credible evidence and your only recourse would be to use garbage links. How does a parade with a statue constitiute pagan practice? If you wear a wedding ring then you are guilty of a pagan practice.I wasn’t able to upload pictures here and that is why I directed you to a way to see something of what I was referring to…all I asked you to do is do a simple google search to see similar pagan rituals with statues of Mary being done throughout Italy. I don’t have to do your homework.
This thread is not about the pagan influence of Catholicism and I’ve already felt that it’s going off course, so I won’t oblige (take your bait) at this time.
P
paul_c
Guest
P
paul_c
Guest
Frankly, this is incredibly naive. The word of God is only as good as its interpretation. By parsing out short snippets, anyone can make scripture say anything they want. The Devil proved it himself in Mathew chapter 4. The trick is to understand it all in relationship to itself. Only if your interpretations is consistent with all of scripture, can you be assured it is correct.
As an example, To say that Jesus affirmed the bible’s scientific accuracy (Matt 19:2-5) is a joke.
Here it is:
2 Great crowds followed him, and he cured them there.
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
4 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
He’s talking about the immorality in divorce and you describe this as affirming scientific accuracy? Come on. Did you even check out these bible tracks?
I’m not disagreeing that the Bible does not hold the truth. It does. But your preachers are not teaching the truth from it. Lets use another example from this statement you quoted:
You say that Jesus affirmed the bible’ factual inerrancy with John 17:17 so lets look at what it says:
this is the John Chapter 17: 12-26 so you can see how it fits together:
.
12 When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13 But now I am coming to you. I speak this in the world so that they may share my joy completely.
14 I gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.
15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.
16 They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.
17 Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
18 As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19 And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23 I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.
24 Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
25 Righteous Father, the world also does not know you, but I know you, and they know that you sent me.
26 I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”
As you can see, the line you quoted has nothing to do with Bible inerrancy. Its part of a prayer of Jesus that long predated the new Testament and he doesn’t refer to the written word at all. This is simply yet another example of Preachers taking a few word snippets to tell the story they want to tell, without regard to what the verse was really about. This is tantamount to lying about what the Bible says. How do you feel about Pastor Chuch Smith now?
I
imjustme
Guest
FYI -I believe that with enough searching for names and genealogies, the understanding would be there. Unfortunately, it may be difficult because the NT is not intended as a book of genealogy as was the OT so many links are not clearly stated. But…when they say brother, it means brother
I realize that my reply may have come across as short and not giving much attention to your information. That is not the case, but it was 2 AM and I was getting tired. I do plan to research the mystery of the three Marys and three James and if I find anything new, I will let you know.
A
adrift
Guest
Do a search of this site there a few threads that address this issue.
You have no idea when the Angel came at what point the engagement happened. How do you know what Mary’s understanding was. The angel didn’t say when.
She couldn’t get a job at Wal-Mart.
Seriously, if she pledged to be a virgin she would need someone to protect her. Only immoral women lived alone. You have got to look at times then not now.I went through Catholic school and there was always a bible. We learned how to read it and were encouraged to read it. Perhaps you just did not pay attention.
And what does the bible say is the pillar and foundation of truth?
Timothy 3:15
I
imjustme
Guest
Jude was half brother of Jesus and brother to James, but during Jesus’ life, he had rejected that Jesus was the Messiah (John 7:1-9). He converted along with his other brothers after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:14). When writing this episle, he is humbling himself by defining himself as slave (bondservant in my version) to Jesus Christ. He mentions being brother of James because at that time James was the well known leader of the Jerusalem church.
I happened to find this info online that explains more about this very verse:
jude-study.org/pages/1/index.htm
By the way, reading further I learned that there were at least 8 Judes in the NT and 4 James’.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Originally posted by me: However, to paraphrase St. Augustine, you would not believe in the Bible were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church!
Thus, you would not believe the Bible were it not for the authority of the CC!
How do you know exactly what are the inspired books, if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church telling you so?!! It was the CC that decided that Romans is inspired, but the Didache isn’t. They decided that the Gospel of Mark is inspired, but the Gospel of Thomas isn’t.
Thus, you would not believe the Bible were it not for the authority of the CC!
P
PRmerger
Guest
imjustme, I’m trying to respond to your question about infant baptism, but since you’re not using the “quote” feature in the usual manner, I can’t quote you to let you know what I’m responding to.
Click here to read about the Catholic teaching of infant baptism.
BTW, to quote someone in the usual way, allowing others to quote you would be to use the typograph. That will enclose the comment you’d like to respond to, and then others can use it to respond to yours.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Your Bible, imjustme, tells you to do just the opposite! See Matt 18:17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church”
The Bible tells you that the church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of truth! See 1 Tim 3:15.
P
paul_c
Guest
This article on the breathren of the Lord, from the Catholic Encyclopedia answers all of your concerns: I hope you will read it.
newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm
It says that there are only 2 James, not 4 and gives scriptural proof. Where is your proof of the 4 James and the 8 Judes? It also explains the quote you bring up about the brothers not believing in Jesus. If you want the truth, you will read this.
E
erikd
Guest
The Council of Trent re-affirmed earlier council decisions. Councils are usually called upon due to problematic issues that arise within Christianity. A perfect example is the first ever Christian council, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) which dealt on the issue of Christian circumcision. In similar ways, councils have been orchestrated by the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years. Most councils, as did the council of Jerusalem, deal with problems of the Church and decide on them authoritatively as happened in Acts 15. During the time of the reformation, the Council of Trent addressed the heresies brought about by the reformation of, among others, an excommunicated Priest, one Martin Luther. Because Luther considered removing a total of eleven Books from the Bible, and later settled on seven, the Council addressed this issue and reaffirmed earlier council canons proclaiming the Canonicity of the Bible. Remember, the first ever Bible was put together at the end of the 4th century, and it included all the same Books that the Catholic Bible includes today. Included below is a link to the Council of Carthage in 419 AD. Look for Canon 24 (about ¼ down the page) and you’ll see a list of 71 Books. The reason it’s 71 and not 73 is because the Book of Baruch as well as the Book of Lamentations was at that time combined into the Book of Jeremiah. It wasn’t until sometime later that these Books were separated into their own individual works.
newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
The Jews also rejected Christ. Remember a division arose between the Jews and Gentiles during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. A separation had to be made between the Jews that rejected Christ and the Gentiles that accepted and glorified Him. This form of division led to the Council of Jamnia which concluded to accept the Tanakh instead of the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Bible that the Apostled used, which would have made it the Bible that Christ used. The Septuagint had every Book of the current Catholic Old Testament as well as others which are not considered Canonical by the Church.
The King James Version of the Bible has five old Testament books that do not have direct quotations to the New Testament. These books are: Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles (a.k.a. Song of Solomon, a.k.a. Song of Songs), 1 Esdras (a.k.a. Ezra), and 2 Esdras (a.k.a. Nehemiah). If you added the Deuterocanonical 7 Books, that’s 12 Books without direct quotations. That would reduce the Bible to just 61 books. The fact that Jesus did not quote from these Books does not take away from their Canonicity.
Can you clarify this question for me? I’m not sure what you mean.
By the way, did you find my analysis of Psalm 69 interesting?
E
erikd
Guest
That is the only verse in the Bible that uses the word “anepsios” which literally means “sister’s son.” The reason, and I can only speculate here, is that it is clear from the account in Colossians as well as in Phlm 24, Tm 4,11 and from Acts 12, 13, and 15 that this person is a cousin and not a brother. Remember, in Aramaic the word for cousin or relative is simply “brother.” My speculation, and that’s all anyone can do with this verse is speculate, is that the original scribes who translated this verse from Aramaic to Greek, realized this and inserted the correct word. If you would ask, at this point, why would the scribes not treat Jesus’ words the same way, it is simple: Jesus referred to all who obeyed as His brother, sister, mother, etc. The scribes who interpreted from Aramaic knew that and wanted to maintain the sanctity of His own words. This, of course, is my speculation and without a written account of the scribes that wrote this word “cousin” I don’t think we can get a definitive answer, all we can do is make an educated guess.
If you refer to Paul C’s post 637, along with my post 623, I think that will answer this question.
Paul C goes into this in great detail in post 637.
Agreed, and only shown for informational purposes. Barnabas is also listed as a brother of Jesus, when clearly he is not.
Not necessarily true. Remember, Jesus used the word brother very often, and in Aramaic that was the only word the translators would see. Therefore, in order to maintain the sanctity and originality of the Words of Jesus, the translators would have left the original words intact.
I
imjustme
Guest
This verse teaches what to do when a fellow Christian sins against us and has nothing to do with the church being the foundation of truth. Read the whole instruction…Your Bible, imjustme, tells you to do just the opposite! See Matt 18:17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church”
The Bible tells you that the church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of truth! See 1 Tim 3:15.
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
(i.e. if someone sins against you, work it out with them one-on-one)
16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’**
(i.e. if that doesn’t work, try again with 2-3 witnesses)
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.
(i.e. if that doesn’t work, talk to the church – I would think the pastor)
But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
(i.e. if he refuses to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector - I guess they didn’t like the IRS in biblical times, either!)**
I
imjustme
Guest
typograph. That will enclose the comment you’d like to respond to, and then others can use it to respond to yours.
Thank you for the instruction on how to reply within the quoted text. I am new here and am still working my way around the system. I appreciate your suggestion and will try it next time.
Thank you also for the link.
I
imjustme
Guest
Thank you for sharing your interpretation. I appreciate your time in writing this and it is interesting.
In my Bible (the NKJV) it doesn’t say “mother” …it reads 69:8
“I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s children”
It seems to be prophetic of how Jesus felt when his own brothers didn’t believe in Him in
Matthew 12:46-50 (New King James Version)
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Not to harp on something we’ve already gone over, but again this justifies (to me) Jesus’ asking John to care for His mother at the cross. According to this text, he is saying that He considers His followers to be His brothers and not His blood brothers, because they were not followers.
I personally have some friends that are closer than family, so I can relate
I
imjustme
Guest
How about Matt 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
E
erikd
Guest
Hi, ImjustmeThank you for sharing your interpretation. I appreciate your time in writing this and it is interesting.
In my Bible (the NKJV) it doesn’t say “mother” …it reads 69:8
“I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s children”
It seems to be prophetic of how Jesus felt when his own brothers didn’t believe in Him in
Matthew 12:46-50 (New King James Version)
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Not to harp on something we’ve already gone over, but again this justifies (to me) Jesus’ asking John to care for His mother at the cross. According to this text, he is saying that He considers His followers to be His brothers and not His blood brothers, because they were not followers.
I personally have some friends that are closer than family, so I can relate
What I tried to portray in my analysis of Psalm 69 is the direct relationship between the Psalm and the Gospel of John that I quoted. The reason I was saying it is a direct relationship is because in St. John 2:17, the disciples remembered what was written in this Psalm “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.” I therefore made a direct corralation between the Psalm and the part of the Gospel it is prophetic of. In this part of the Gospel, we don’t hear anything about the biological brothers and sisters of Jesus, quite the opposite. I’m not sure I see the direct connection between the Psalm and the verses you quoted from St. Matthew’s Gospel. Can you elaborate on this relationship? Thanks.
P
paul_c
Guest
How about Matt 12: 46-50? It has the same references as the others, if you substitute the word “relative” for “brothers”, you will understand this properly. Did you read that article I clipped in yesterday from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It answers every point you have brought up on the issue.
- Status