Prove it!

[fbl9]

Let’s see, if he’s your first born, I’d say wonderful - how many children do you have? If you responded I have one, I’d think to myself, why did he or she refer to their only child as “first born?” I wouldn’t ask it out loud because if I knew you only had one child and did not see other references in your family to other children, I’d assume perhaps one child may have died or that you were planning to have more. Not necessarily that you had more, but were planning to have more. With that comes sex within the marriage.

Like I said - to me it would be strange to see a reference to an only child referred to as “first born” if other children weren’t involved or planned for the future.

I have two but my son being the youngest is my firstborn.If Joseph had other children before his marriage to Mary,Jesus would therefore be called their firstborn.

 

[Filioque]

You may have missed my point. There’s plenty of sin to go around in all denominations and religions including yours.​

BTW, in the USof A, priest pediphiles were knowing moved to other churches. Not only that but there was years of denial. So much for centralized churhc government.

It was you who tried to defame the Catholic Church, but bringing up the entire subject. Either your direct attack on the Church was invalid, (as the Catholic Church has never claimed that Holy Orders, or membership in the Church exempts one from being a sinner) or the attack was just a failed attempt at defaming the Church.

It would seem you missed my point, that pointing out sinners in any denomination does not prove anything exept that they exist. Protestantism has not openly admitted after decades of silence on the subject that it does and did exist. Based on your veiled charges of how evil the Catholic Church is by years of denial, something that like it or not Catholic diocese and bishops have been forced (and I myself am thankful that they were exposed for it) and Protestants have yet to be dragged through the mud for it, then Protestants would still be guilty of covering up, rather than admitting the problem.

Too bad you have to resort to such a base attack.

 

[fbl9]

This response was to the person that said that their church was the only church set up to deal with disputes. I tried to respond that if that person looked carefully withing her/his church the ability of that church to deal with disputes have been greatly compromised.​

BTW, maybe it was you whom I was trying to respond to.

i am the one you were chatting to in this post. Explain how this problem was a dispute…not one ever said the priest’s behavior was proper…gots tuh roll later.

 

[Dokimas]

i am the one you were chatting to in this post. Explain how this problem was a dispute…not one ever said the priest’s behavior was proper…gots tuh roll later.

The coverup, IMO, makes me question their position to settle disputes.​

 

[Dokimas]

It was you who tried to defame the Catholic Church, but bringing up the entire subject. Either your direct attack on the Church was invalid, (as the Catholic Church has never claimed that Holy Orders, or membership in the Church exempts one from being a sinner) or the attack was just a failed attempt at defaming the Church.

It would seem you missed my point, that pointing out sinners in any denomination does not prove anything exept that they exist. Protestantism has not openly admitted after decades of silence on the subject that it does and did exist. Based on your veiled charges of how evil the Catholic Church is by years of denial, something that like it or not Catholic diocese and bishops have been forced (and I myself am thankful that they were exposed for it) and Protestants have yet to be dragged through the mud for it, then Protestants would still be guilty of covering up, rather than admitting the problem.

Too bad you have to resort to such a base attack.

You must be too angry to read what I’ve said carefully. I don’t think the CC is evil. It’s not may place to judge what church is or is not evil. I’ve not defamed anyone or anything. I’ve just stated some facts.​

I’m not sure what protestant church denom. you’re speaking about that has covered up, but the CC in the USofA have covered up this problem. I’m sure it’s human nature to coverup.

 

[Dokimas]

I have two but my son being the youngest is my firstborn.If Joseph had other children before his marriage to Mary,Jesus would therefore be called their firstborn.

And what are you basing the idea that Joseph had children before Mary?​

jBTW, it says that Jesus was her (Mary’s) firstborn, not their firstborn.

 

[Dokimas]

It was you who tried to defame the Catholic Church, but bringing up the entire subject. Either your direct attack on the Church was invalid, (as the Catholic Church has never claimed that Holy Orders, or membership in the Church exempts one from being a sinner) or the attack was just a failed attempt at defaming the Church.

It would seem you missed my point, that pointing out sinners in any denomination does not prove anything exept that they exist. Protestantism has not openly admitted after decades of silence on the subject that it does and did exist. Based on your veiled charges of how evil the Catholic Church is by years of denial, something that like it or not Catholic diocese and bishops have been forced (and I myself am thankful that they were exposed for it) and Protestants have yet to be dragged through the mud for it, then Protestants would still be guilty of covering up, rather than admitting the problem.

Too bad you have to resort to such a base attack.

So if you think I’m defaming the CC and calling it evil are you defaming Protestantism and calling it evil?

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

You must be too angry to read what I’ve said carefully. I don’t think the CC is evil. It’s not may place to judge what church is or is not evil. I’ve not defamed anyone or anything. I’ve just stated some facts.​

I’m not sure what protestant church denom. you’re speaking about that has covered up, but the CC in the USofA have covered up this problem. I’m sure it’s human nature to coverup.

Yes, for sure it IS human nature to cover-up sin. Starting with our great-grandparents ^1000…Adam and Eve!

Sin of every kind is indeed covered up by all. Lord forgive us.

 

[Dokimas]

I like your ‘nick’, Jars of Clay. I just happen to be a fragile one. Also a stubborn one in need ot the Potters handiwork.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, for sure it IS human nature to cover-up sin. Starting with our great-grandparents ^1000…Adam and Eve!

Sin of every kind is indeed covered up by all. Lord forgive us.

If we would ever get it through our thick heads that confession and repentance if freeing. The Lord wants to forgive and free us. Jesus did say that if we’d be His disciple we’d know the truth and the truth would set us free.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

I have two but my son being the youngest is my firstborn.If Joseph had other children before his marriage to Mary,Jesus would therefore be called their firstborn.

Yes! Your example reinforces my point exactly, thank you! Because, as far as I know Joseph wasn’t married before his marriage to Mary. So, the term first born refers to the probability that there were more children born to Mary and Joseph or they were going to try for more, making Jesus their first born son. Very cool, thanks!

Totally answers my question.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

If we would ever get it through our thick heads that confession and repentance if freeing. The Lord wants to forgive and free us. Jesus did say that if we’d be His disciple we’d know the truth and the truth would set us free.

Hey there Dokimas: Thank you for your kind words about my nickname. Jars of Clay is my favorite passage.

Yeah, we need to follow His lead and follow his way. You make me smile Dokimas - blessings to you friend.

 

[Filioque]

So if you think I’m defaming the CC and calling it evil are you defaming Protestantism and calling it evil?

Pointing out that when you attack the Catholic Church for having members who have sinned either by commission or omission, but overlooking the same crimes committed by others, (note I also included Jews, Mormons, JW) we could add Buddhists, Nazi and Communists, as no group is without sinners. Sexual sins against children and covering them up, by Catholics or Protestants is always wrong, and are the sins of individual men, not condoned by the institutions, even when covered up, (another wrong). To attack the authority of the Church, because individual men did not follow the moral teachings of the Church is another issue. Following the argument made by many Protestants that the Catholic Church cannot have any authority because of the scandals yet letting Protestant Churches off because it was less reported, even if more prevalent, is dishonest. Pointing out the dicotomy is only an attack if you want to remain dishonest about your reasons for brining up the issue.

 

[Dokimas]

Pointing out that when you attack the Catholic Church for having members who have sinned either by commission or omission, but overlooking the same crimes committed by others, (note I also included Jews, Mormons, JW) we could add Buddhists, Nazi and Communists, as no group is without sinners. Sexual sins against children and covering them up, by Catholics or Protestants is always wrong, and are the sins of individual men, not condoned by the institutions, even when covered up, (another wrong). To attack the authority of the Church, because individual men did not follow the moral teachings of the Church is another issue. Following the argument made by many Protestants that the Catholic Church cannot have any authority because of the scandals yet letting Protestant Churches off because it was less reported, even if more prevalent, is dishonest. Pointing out the dicotomy is only an attack if you want to remain dishonest about your reasons for brining up the issue.

Before you get so upset and make false conclusions you should read what is said in context. I have plainly stated all of us, including our groups and churches are not without sin. We CAN’T cast the first or any stone.

 

[PRmerger]

You still don’t seem to understand Jewish marriage procedure of Mary’s time. I gave a link I think. Let me give it if I am mistaken.

yeshuatyisrael.com/messiah_wedding%201.htm​

Note #10 (consumation of marriage) takes place up to 2 yrs before the man and woman enters their contract.​

There’s nothing in context that would describe their relationship as celebate. Quite the oposite, so my suggestion in the last post makes sense.

I must have missed that post with the website earlier. Fascinating stuff.

Now, here’s something from the website, which supports exactly what we Catholics have been trying to say: [SIGN] Mary considered herself married by the time the angel appeared to her.[/SIGN]

It says this in your own website source:

Part 1- Erusin or Kiddushin - Betrothal or Engagement
: Kiddushin is derived from the word Kadosh, meaning holy! Once a bride and bridegroom enter into this initial phase of marriage[SIGN] they are considered married. [/SIGN] Another words, they would have to get a divorce, called a “get” to break of the engagement. This period lasts from one to two years.

So…if she’s married and plans to engage in marital relations–in 2 years or immediately–she would not have asked the question in Luke 1:34.

No way. Nuh-uh. Makes no sense. :nope:

The only explanation for this question is: she planned to remain celibate and consecrated to God for her entire life.

Again, let’s say I’m newly married and an angel appears to me and tells me, “You’re going to conceive”. I will say “awesome!”. NOT, how can this happen? Even if I’m going to reserve marital relations for another 2 years.

 

[Dokimas]

I must have missed that post with the website earlier. Fascinating stuff.

Now, here’s something from the website, which supports exactly what we Catholics have been trying to say: [SIGN] Mary considered herself married by the time the angel appeared to her.[/SIGN]

It says this in your own website source:

So…if she’s married and plans to engage in marital relations–in 2 years or immediately–she would not have asked the question in Luke 1:34.

No way. Nuh-uh. Makes no sense. :nope:

The only explanation for this question is: she planned to remain celibate and consecrated to God for her entire life.

Again, let’s say I’m newly married and an angel appears to me and tells me, “You’re going to conceive”. I will say “awesome!”. NOT, how can this happen? Even if I’m going to reserve marital relations for another 2 years.

Matthew 1:18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.​

This is a phrase about consumation of a marriage.​

Matthew 1:25 and did not know her** till she had brought forth her first**born Son. And he called His name JESUS.​

Strange term for a husband that will remain celebate with his wife.​

Luke 2:6 So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.​

I can’t tell you what went through Mary’s head (remember she was quite young) or if there was something in the way the angel said what was said to her or maybe there was something else said that wasn’t recorded. I can show you other verses that makes the conclusion most believable that she had more children.​

I haven’t see anyone answer my question about how many Begotten Sons did God have? How do we know?

 

[horselvr]

Jars:

I always introduced my son as “my first born” just so everyone would know that there was none before him and I knew there would not be any after him.

Dokimas said:
" I can show you other verses that makes the conclusion most believable that she had more children. "

Please do.

 

[Dokimas]

Jars:

I always introduced my son as “my first born” just so everyone would know that there was none before him and I knew there would not be any after him.

What you knew is not really important in understanding what you meant when you said, ‘first born’. What’s important is what listeners understand. I suggest that if you want others to understand the truth about how many children you have, do what God did, tells others you son is you only child.

 

[rdscheirer]

As a Protestant turned Roman Catholic I would have to say read the Church fathers and what they said about the bread of life. As Chesterton said if you are a student of history you will be catholic.I’m upset that Catholic Answers doesn’t have the Church fathers writings like they used to. They definitely helped me to become what my Deacon callls a revert- not a convert- someone who realises thr thruth.

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 1:18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.​

This is a phrase about consumation of a marriage.

Yes.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Dokimas. It means that Joseph was not the father of the babe in Mary’s womb.

It does not explain why Mary, already a* married* woman (affirmed by your source), would ask, “How can this be, since I know not man?” She had not consummated her marriage[SIGN1]…but a woman who’s planning to have a normal marital relationship does not ask that question. [/SIGN1]-

Matthew 1:25 and did not know her** till she had brought forth her first**born Son. And he called His name JESUS.

Again, Dokimas, do you think Michal had children *after *she died? :whacky:

And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.​

Firstborn only indicates the child who has opened the womb. It does not indicate that there was a secondborn or a thirdborn or…

Remember when the Angel of Death passed over the Israelites and killed their firstborn sons? Do you think a family that had only one child said, “Well, I need not slay a lamb 'cause I have only one son; [SIGN]he’s not my firstborn until I have a second![/SIGN]” No way. All Israelites knew that their FIRSTBORN–whether he was an ONLY child, or first among many–would need to be protected.