Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Angelo_Michael]

Mormons aren’t a very good example… the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible are not the same. (according to one of their Presidents).
I don’t have a problem if other churches do not accept the authority of the pope… I don’t do it either.

Janet,
Thanks for your feedback. I guess I don’t know much about your new religion, Southern Baptist. I referred to the Mormons because I could make an analogy easily from the available scripture.
However, there is some other scripture that might help explain my opinion as to why-- even if one does not accept the authority of the Pope, or finds Catholicism in contradiction to Christ’s teachings or Holy Scripture-- that the Pope may still qualify for respect.
The pertinent scripture is 2 Samuel 1: All.
It contains graphic depictions of retribution and I am not intending the scripture to serve as a justification for murder or as an attack against you or your personal beliefs.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Janet, Your getting it right, All Believer in Christ that are Baptism in Christ are member of the CC but they do not have a card , but if they believe the are part of the Church, Jent, You are part of the Church lets go to Mass one Sunday and then I,ll take you to breakfast after LOL.

“I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in…We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits.” Tertullian, Apology, 39:1 (A.D. 197).

“To sum up all in one word–what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible.” Letter to Diognetus, 6:1 (A.D. 200).

 

[Angelo_Michael]

…]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a129.htm

An excerpt: …visit reply #237 or follow link in quote for reference…]

I don’t quite understand the merit for the accusation against Protestant theology, “The retreat of fundamentalist or most evangelical Protestantism into the invisible as into the “purer” is a semi-Gnostic devaluing of matter.” considering the integrity of Christ’s words in 6:63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” It as though the baby (Christ’s teachings/words on the valuelessness of the flesh in comparison to the spirit) is thrown out with the bath water (Protestantism).

Note to the reader: I edited the qoute, and also it was not initially directed toward me.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet, Your getting it right, All Believer in Christ that are Baptism in Christ are member of the CC but they do not have a card , but if they believe the are part of the Church, Jent, You are part of the Church lets go to Mass one Sunday and then I,ll take you to breakfast after LOL.

“I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in…We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits.” Tertullian, Apology, 39:1 (A.D. 197).

“To sum up all in one word–what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible.” Letter to Diognetus, 6:1 (A.D. 200).

I am a believer in Christ and I rest assured to be part of His church. I would however not go to mass at all and I would also not even go to mass with you if we were to be moved to Bragg.

 

[Don_Hepler]

Since many of the replies have focused on the differences between Catholic and Protestant theology, and since I have argued in favor of a Catholic authority, I find it imperative to investigate on what grounds Protestants are basing their faith, or-- what may be considered by some as-- rebellion.

If the audience and editor(s) are willing let us review the consecration of Peter:
Matthew 16:13-23,
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Now let us consider also an Old Testament Scripture pertaining to the validity of covenants, Jeremiah 18:1-10:
"The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

And to show the correlation between the two I will reference John 5:19-30,
“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
…verses 24-29…]
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

I am not sure if it is according to this, or some other doctrine, that Protestants have, from what I understand, separated from the Catholic Church and formed their own doctrinologies.

Perhaps an argument may include references to some other scriptures pertaining to the shortcomings of Peter, or yet perhaps to, what could be perceived as, sins of the Catholic Church.

I am not sure if this argument/scenario/inquisition constitutes another thread, or that if elaborated upon and explored here, would violate site policy.

 

[Don_Hepler]

Angelo: why do you write down so many scriptures?? and only give a couple of paragraphs of your opinion on what you wrote? What constitutes scripture, here we have a bible that we claim is ours, It was written for the jews and Israel it wasn’t for the gentiles
but we find in and translate it and claim it. It tells stories, or histories, compiled, some to confusion, as to what or even who has authority, Is Peter the Pope, and Did Christ when talking to Peter refer to Peter as the Rock or was it refering to how he received his testimony for God (reverlation) is what he refered to as the Rock, meaning AND upon this…Confusion, confusion…I love book and have aquired quite a few, When Albert Einstein developed the theory of relativity, he totally changed the thinking of the scientific world. He reasoned that although matter cannot be destroyed or created out of nothing, matter can be converted in pure energy, and pure energy can be converted into matter. The relationship between energy and matter is now stated in the familiar formula e-mc.2.
God has complete control over the Light. Therefore, it will obey his spoken word, or even his will. He can create by speaking or thinking something into existence. Some people have supposed that God has created something out of nothing, and it may appear as if it were really so. In reality, all He needed to do was to convert pure energy (HIS Light) into matter… We find a good example of this creative process in to the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand. A grat multitude had very little food. It was found that the only food the people had was five loaves of bread and two fish. In some way the master caused the food to multiply itself so as to have enough to feed the five thousand people, and the fragments left over were gathered up filling twelve baskets. The people thought he had created food out of nothing. Christ had at his disposal the greatest source of energy in the universe and could easily convert that energy into food. A similar situation existed when the Lord fed the children of Israel on manna. Lets consider the creative process that consists of organizing matter that already exists. The Light, which is the ultimate energy source, not only makes it possible for God to think or to speak things into existence, it also makes ti possible for the elements to obey when God speaks. This obedience comes from the fact that the Light is in all things and in some sense gives life to all things. Because the air, the rocks, and sea etc. are alive, when God speaks they obey. If an object wher completely dead in the sense that we ordinarily think of a rock as dead, such an object would not have the ability to act, and therefore, when God commands they obey. I do not understand the nature of the life within the rock or some other inanimated object, but nevertheless, all things have some form of life within them. IT is that life that makes it possible for creation to take place though the process of organizing existing elements by just commanding those elements to move into the desired form. This might be hard to accept, but modern physicists have found that subatomic particles are affected by ones THOUGHTS and the result of an experiment is affected by the thoughts and expectations of the one conducing the experiment.
Of course, the greatest and best example of creation is the creation of the world. God spoke the world into existence. The account of the creation as found in the Bible begins by saying, " And God said, Let there be Light." Immediately there was light, and so it was with each of the other phases of cration. Whatsoever the spoken word of God described became reality. All things obey his will. He can speak things into existence. When God speaks something into existence, that creative process involves a tremendous amount fo energy. That energy is the Light Force. Can man use Light to create, even as God Creates??? Yes! Christ promised that those who believe in Him would be able to do the same works that He did. We should be striving to become like HIM. This would include developing the ability to create. God is the source of all truth and knowledge. Truth and knowledge are communicated to man by God through the use of the Light which radiates from the presence of God. The Light becomes the channel of communication. I believe that God transmits knowledge throughout space in much the same manner as a radio transmitting information through space. I believe that the Light Force is the medium through which that knowledge is transmitted. The Light is no only a medium though which knowledge is transmitted, all knowledge is contained with in that Light. As a result, the greater the Light within a person, the greater wil be that person’s knowledge and understanding of truth. (WHAT IS TRUTH) It is interesting to not that Satan does not usually deceive one by teaching some new strange doctrine. He is not creative, for creativity comes from God and is associated with Light. Satan’s method of operation is to deny truth. He says such things as You will not surely die" “There is no God” Or Go ahead and eo it. one time will not matter. As one contemplates the face that the Light is everywhere present, there are many interesting thoughts that come to mind that are worth considering here. Many Christians have thought that God has no body, parts, nor passions, and that he is everywhere present, that he is composed of truth and light and is the creative power of the universe. Let us consider another possibility. Perhaps in giving such a description, these people are describing the Light, Not God, and they fail to understand that the great power which they have described radiates from the presence of a personage who is literally our Father, an is whose image we were created. If such is the case, it would be correct to say that the Light is an extension of God, and thus one could say as Christ said, “The Father dwells with in me.” This would not however, rule out the fact that God is a personal being. In the beginning, In the beginning, man understood the nature of God and the power which radiates from his presence. It is not surprising that the various people of the earth would retain some part of the at knowledge in a corrupt form, even f the knowledge of God had been lost.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Angelo: why do you write down so many scriptures?? and only give a couple of paragraphs of your opinion on what you wrote?..]

Don,
I often quote scripture because it serves as a foundation for understanding, and when posted in a forum such as this, can help achieve an equilibrium of data among diverse individuals. My goal in addressing you was to help you become more expressive and remind you that if you were going to deviate from scripture that I would be aware of it. I have always admired Joseph (in Genesis), and I am finally starting to feel that you are living up to your potential. But just as I have learned not to let my admiration turn to envy, so I would also caution others not to be envious.

 

[Don_Hepler]

You don’t have to be envious, just ponder on the things that I write. YOU see most people think that if it is not written then it is not true. or that the heavens are closed that we don’t need any more written word but I find that as strange as Janets God or yours. God is not dead and we as his children have got to stop putting him in the box and not letting him out unless he conforms to our thinking. And who says God cannot reveal his word. Is there not more than one nation, cannot God speak to whom ever he pleases. Who are we to say that we have enough, that we need no more of the word of God. Suppose, he wanted to call a prophet like Moses who are we to dictate what God says or does, do we know the mind of God. God can take away even that which we have. My God Is GOD.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Psalm 12 (Of David),
“Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.”

Another reason I qoute scripture is for personal inspiration and to partake of the experience and insights of sanctified, authorized, and/or glorified people. It is unlikely that I, or presumably many others, would be able to remember every thing written in scripture at all times, if we were ever always aware of it to begin with. When I find something that seems pertinent I try to post it for others to reflect on as well.

It seems that we have gotten a little off topic and so I will summarize my views on the topic of the post, that Christ was an only Son:
It appears to me that the argument is perhaps best viewed as a lesson is the dangers of inference and assumption. For, as it were, some Catholic translations of the Bible have led me to assume, thru their assertions, that the Hebrew Old Testament said things that it did not. And also, I have witnessed, what could be considered as, a certain perversion of New Testament scripture from those same translations. I am not asserting that the translations are indicative of all Catholic theology and doctrinology. Yet, the present argument pertaining to Mary, Joseph, and Christ, and the position of the Catholic Church has reminded me of the importance of evaluating a matter fully and not drawing unnecessary conclusions. However, I am not an expert, in any way, of this or any other language(s) such as: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, or others.

 

[Prieldedi]

Oh yes? Well that is a little short for an answer… I’d say no… The word brother (ah-thel-PHOS) is never used for cousin because there is another Greek word for cousin (ksaTHElfia). The word for cousin however is used (for cousin that is).

Janet1983…

As mentioned by others, the aramic and hebrew languages had no word in Jesus’ time for “cousin”. When those passages were translated from aramic/hebrew to the Greek, the translators used the first meaning available to them in greek: that’s why “brother/brothers” was used.

Look at these passages:

Genesis 11,27, “These are Terah’s descendants: Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. Haran became the father of Lot.”

Genesis 13,8, "Abram said to Lot, “Don’t let there be a dispute between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and yours, since we are brothers!”

You can see that Abram is the “uncle” of Lot, yet the translator used the word “brothers” in Genesis 13,8 instead of “uncle and nephew”. Why? Why would the author of Genesis be so wrong?

He wasn’t wrong. The reason is because there was no word in aramic/hebrew to describe what in english we call “uncle, nephew, cousin.”

So in your own Bible you can find the proof that when the word “brother” (in greek) is used, it doesn’t mean that the individuals referred to are biological sons of the same father and mother. Otherwise, using your own reasoning, one has no option but to say that “looking at all the other evidence it is just logical to assume that Terah had sexual relations with his daughter in law, and that after Lot was born they lived otherwise normal lives.”

(I use aramic/hebrew because some texts were written in one or the other language and there is no way to know, 100% sure, in which language were they written first.)

God bless you

 

[SonofMonica]

Janet1983…

As mentioned by others, the aramic and hebrew languages had no word in Jesus’ time for “cousin”. When those passages were translated from aramic/hebrew to the Greek, the translators used the first meaning available to them in greek: that’s why “brother/brothers” was used.

Look at these passages:

Genesis 11,27, “These are Terah’s descendants: Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. Haran became the father of Lot.”

Genesis 13,8, "Abram said to Lot, “Don’t let there be a dispute between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and yours, since we are brothers!”

You can see that Abram is the “uncle” of Lot, yet the translator used the word “brothers” in Genesis 13,8 instead of “uncle and nephew”. Why? Why would the author of Genesis be so wrong?

He wasn’t wrong. The reason is because there was no word in aramic/hebrew to describe what in english we call “uncle, nephew, cousin.”

So in your own Bible you can find the proof that when the word “brother” (in greek) is used, it doesn’t mean that the individuals referred to are biological sons of the same father and mother. Otherwise, using your own reasoning, one has no option but to say that “looking at all the other evidence it is just logical to assume that Terah had sexual relations with his daughter in law, and that after Lot was born they lived otherwise normal lives.”

(I use aramic/hebrew because some texts were written in one or the other language and there is no way to know, 100% sure, in which language were they written first.)

God bless you

Very scholarly and interesting point. Welcome to the conversation!

 

[Bill_Pick]

I am a believer in Christ and I rest assured to be part of His church. I would however not go to mass at all and I would also not even go to mass with you if we were to be moved to Bragg.

Onch Janet Now you got me crying you must be one of them hard heared SB of the Farwell type. Well we know Jerry is not with us any more, I love to know where he is, where do you think he is today ?
It look like I must look for a friend to go to breakfast with,and I was thinking we was friends.

 

[Janet1983]

Onch Janet Now you got me crying you must be one of them hard heared SB of the Farwell type. Well we know Jerry is not with us any more, I love to know where he is, where do you think he is today ?
It look like I must look for a friend to go to breakfast with,and I was thinking we was friends.

This is not about you. It is just about me not going to mass… not here and not if I were in reach of you at Bragg.
This is nothing against you. I don’t know you well enough…
One of my best friends (#3 right after God and my husband) is a wonderful man, very nice and when I lived in his neighborhood I used to share most of my life with him and a couple of other folks. He is a priest and a conservative one at that… I even asked him for his blessing before I married my husband…

Edit: Who is Jerry?

 

[Bill_Pick]

This is not about you. It is just about me not going to mass… not here and not if I were in reach of you at Bragg.
This is nothing against you. I don’t know you well enough…
One of my best friends (#3 right after God and my husband) is a wonderful man, very nice and when I lived in his neighborhood I used to share most of my life with him and a couple of other folks. He is a priest and a conservative one at that… I even asked him for his blessing before I married my husband…

Edit: Who is Jerry?

Janet, Good for you see not all Cathloics are bad,Priest He was a Cathloic,right…I,m bet he did not ask you day by day if you are saved.This may start a whole new Thread.

 

[freedomwriter]

Onch Janet Now you got me crying you must be one of them hard heared SB of the Farwell type. Well we know Jerry is not with us any more, I love to know where he is, where do you think he is today ?
It look like I must look for a friend to go to breakfast with,and I was thinking we was friends.

Im not SB but i think Falwell is in the presence of the Lord right now worshipping Him. He is certainly not floating around purgatory lol.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Janet so why does your profilr say SB

 

[Janet1983]

Janet so why does your profilr say SB

It does say SB because I am a member of a SB congregation.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Can you please explain

 

[Bill_Pick]

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO GOD THE FATHER, WHO SENT HIS ANGEL, GABRIEL, TO PROCLAIM TO HER, AND ONLY TO HER, “HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN”.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO SANCTIFIED HER AS HIS SPOUSE, AND TO BE THE VESSEL TO CARRY THE WORD INCARNATE, THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS MOTHER, AS HE HIMSELF WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, WHO WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CARRIED THE GUILT OF INGRATITUDE TO GOD FOREVER, IF SHE HAD DISCARDED THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF HER VIRGINITY WHICH GOD HAD SO METICULOUSLY PREPARED FOR HER IN THE CONCEPTION OF HIS WORD INCARNATE.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO ST. JOSEPH. Knowing full well that Mary had given birth to the Word Incarnate, and that her Son was the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of GOD, he must have been awestruck by the event. He knew that just by her being the one chosen (Luke 1:27-33), and by an act of GOD, in protecting her virginity (Luke 1:34-38), that she was special, and by the special graces given to her, elevated her far above any other woman. After all what could possibly follow the honor and graces given her by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is her spouse and St. Joseph knew it when he was informed by the Angel in a dream (Matthew 1:20). Would any sane man be so vain as to father mere human children with her? The idea of the spouse of the Holy Spirit becoming a mother to one not by the Holy Spirit, would have been repulsive, and would have had all the ingredients of sacrilege to him.

 

[FCEGM]

I don’t quite understand the merit for the accusation against Protestant theology, “The retreat of fundamentalist or most evangelical Protestantism into the invisible as into the “purer” is a semi-Gnostic devaluing of matter.” considering the integrity of Christ’s words in 6:63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” It as though the baby (Christ’s teachings/words on the valuelessness of the flesh in comparison to the spirit) is thrown out with the bath water (Protestantism).

Not at all. Consider that the Lord Himself became Flesh. To devalue flesh (as in the total spiritualization of Protestantism with the Eucharist) is to devalue the Incarnation. The verse you quote comes from the Lord’s Bread of Life discourse wherein He introduces His hearers to the anticipated gift of Himself in the Eucharist. Knowing His own mission to be the sacrificial lamb of the world, he could not possibly have meant that His own flesh was of no avail. In fact, His very flesh, bruised, beaten and pierced, and His very blood poured out, is the only means of our salvation. His flesh is of EVERY avail.

John 6:63 understood in context is in fact an integral component of the whole Bread of Life discourse which helps to illustrate the mindset of the disciples and to clarify the message of Jesus. The passage taken as a whole reveals to us the meaning of the words “bread of life”, which is quite literally the supernatural flesh and blood of Christ, as seen through spiritual eyes. He is truly and fully present in the Holy Eucharist.

John 6:66 illustrates that many of His followers could not take Him at His word, could not grasp with spiritual understanding the depth of the Gift He would give us.

Further, matter - since it is God’s creation - is good. It can be and has been put to evil uses, but in Christ Jesus it reaches its perfection/glorification; our union with Him can have the same result through our perseverance in Faith, Hope and Charity.