Prove it!

[guanophore]

Here’s where you’re wrong: I have no problem with the CC holding ‘extra-Biblical’ beliefs as long as they (the beliefs) don’t contradict the Bible and as long as the CC member know that the extra-Biblical beliefs could be incorrect. If you can’t admit this then it is you that may be hypocritical.

It is important to distinguish between Sacred Tradition (which cannote be wrong) and the traditions of men, which can. The Catholic Church has both. The reason the Sacred Traditions cannot be wrong is that they are the Word of God, which is inspired and inerrant.

The traditions of men are customs, which have the potential to conflict with the Word of God. They don’t necessarily. For example, Scripture says that when Paul entered a city for the first time, he went first to the synagogue “as was his custom”. He was sent to preach the Gospel, and agreed always to go first to the circumcision. This custom, a tradition of Paul, is not binding upon us.

 

[guanophore]

Logic tells me if the early church taught what the CC teaches about Mary (things like: perpetual virginity, immaculate conception)

I think you are right about this. Logic is one important element, and does not contradict the Revelation of God, which is the most important element. there are times when Revelation does defy Logic, for example,that a Holy Omnipotent God would become man, and die for His creatures.

• then the first pope would have …

Such statements are an excellent example of our modern hubris. We presume to know what would have, or “should” have been done.

-made comment on something sooo important. You’d think the Holy Spirit would have had Paul, James, Peter and the other apostles mentioned your teachings.

No, we do not think this. In the first two centuries of the Church, it was the nature and mission of Christ that was the central focus. Many heresies had to be combatted and defeated. It was only out of those that doctrine was developed about a number of areas that were not specifically addressed by the Apostles, such as the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, Trinity, hypostatic union, nature of original sin and it’s effects. All the doctrines defined centuries later by the Church are based upon what the Apostles taught (like the Trinity) whether they are specifically mentioned, or not.​

-The doctrines of Mary that are in question are not in the OT either.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

 

[fbl9]

I’ve not seen any ‘good’ verses about God’s hatred of birth control. The spilling of sperm being against birth control is WAY out of context.

St.Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 2:12-16 we read that the Gentiles will be judged by the natural law,Now is it natural for a couple to have relations that exclude the natural purpose of such relations?
According to the angel Rapheal it is not: for we read what he said to Tobias 6:16-18 “Then the angel Rapheal said to him(Tobias): Hear me, and i will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail17 For they who in such a manner recieve matrimony as to shut God out for themsleves and from thier mind, and give themselves over to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
The book of Tobias 8:5 “For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that do not know God”

The mating of a horse and mule is a sterile mating, for mules are infertile.
Shut God out: God as the author of life is shut out of a relation that can not recieve life.
So the doctrine against birth control is indeed from scripture.And from a knowledge of who God is.

 

[fbl9]

Wow, those are very strange responses.

Yes, there are false churches out there. But EVERY church falls short and the proof is in our exchange of words. Two different opinions that really aren’t worth a hill of beans. And it gets us nowhere, so I choose not to respond to most of your comments except for two:

1. 
   *]I don’t wear a cross friend. You probably should have asked me first before assuming such a thing.
   
   *]Did I say I didn’t believe in a virginal birth? I don’t think so.
   
   With all of our shortcomings, I’ll see you in heaven and we will both laugh at the ridiculousness of this “conversation.” I’m telling you that God cares not about any of these differences. He cares about our hearts and our belief in Him and our belief that He died for our sins.
   
   I choose to no longer contribute to “arguments” in this forum that would arouse pointless and ridiculous banter such as what I started here. I will try to lovingly state my opinions and if someone wants to get on their high-horse about something - so be it.
   
   As long as they don’t attack our Lord - that’s where I draw the line.
   
   To those who were exposed to this - I apologize. To the person that I incited to respond in a unfriendly manner - I also apologize.
   
   Forgive me.

1. 
   Apology accepted you are forgiven: what got me the most was the attitude in which your “truth” was posted and most of all the words Hocus pocus…you yourself would not take kindly to having your bleifs labeled as an evil thing.
   And no i wasn’t on a high horse i aim low take out the kness
   What so ever isn’t the full truth isn’t the truth so if all churchs are false then there is no truth.

 

[fbl9]

Apology accepted you are forgiven: what got me the most was the attitude in which your “truth” was posted and most of all the words Hocus pocus…you yourself would not take kindly to having your bleifs labeled as an evil thing.
And no i wasn’t on a high horse i aim low take out the kness
What so ever isn’t the full truth isn’t the truth so if all churchs are false then there is no truth.

Had things to attend to before i could finish:

Jarsofclay please accept my apology for my unkind response.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

Apology accepted you are forgiven: what got me the most was the attitude in which your “truth” was posted and most of all the words Hocus pocus…you yourself would not take kindly to having your bleifs labeled as an evil thing.
And no i wasn’t on a high horse i aim low take out the kness
What so ever isn’t the full truth isn’t the truth so if all churchs are false then there is no truth.

Thank you. I like your comment about aiming low to take out the knees - that made me smile. Good one!

I realized after I read your reply that I’m typing words that first come to mind without consideration about how it would be interpreted by the reader. So, I’m trying to be more aware of what I write.

There are a lot of opinions in this forum and I’m seeing a lot of what reads like heated exchanges. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to contribute to that or incite that. (The Lord would not approve of that behavior!) I want to be able to express my opinion, read someone else’s opinions, comments, & references, and perhaps find a common ground and maybe learn something and provide the same for someone else.

Once again, thank you for accepting my apology and I look forward to our future exchange of thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

 

[Dokimas]

Originally Posted by Dokimas and commented in red by FidesSpesCarita​

I have not disrespected Mary. I may have disrespected your belief of Mary in your mind and I can’t help that. I think she’s a wonder example of how Christians should be. I’ve used her as an example a number of times in teaching ideas from the Bible. Might as well say Jesus was a “good example” of how to live, since he obviously was only doing the will of his Father we dont need to emulate him… How is this NOT disrespectful?-
The word ‘until’ represents a period of time between two things in both cases: all the Lord Jesus’ enemies are not defeated yet so they are not yet under His feet The point is, when all his enemies are under his feet, does he no longer sit at the right hand of God? It does say until, which, according to your logic, requires the antithesis to naturally come to pass. Flawed logic will get you but ONE thing… Therefore, Ps 110 is a good example showing how Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary until after Jesus was born.​

I’ve read the CC point of view through poster like yourself on the ‘brothers and sisters’ issue. It’s very shallow IMO. The same word is used for the relationship between Peter and Andrew and between James and John. Wher they brothers or not. Look back at the passage where Jesus was told His mother and brothers where there to see Him. He had a very interesting response. The (name removed by moderator)act of His statement in reply is nullified if you but ‘cousin’ instead of brother in His reply. Are you a spiritual cousin of Jesus or a spiritual brother (or sister) of Jesus?See PRMergers comment below. But the Adelphos discussion is absolutely solid. Denial of the multiple meanings of the word shows ignorance of history, apathy to the truth, or pride in your own intellect at being better able to understand it than scholars who spend lifetimes in study.

Comment #1 Don’t tell me you’re equating Mary and Jesus. The Bible does say Jesus is God and He let people worship Him. I think your example doesn’t work.​

Comment #2 My logic doesn’t include ‘until’ having any antithesis. If Mary was pledged to celebacy for her life, why didn’t she say that she’s pledged never to ‘know a man’?​

Comment #3 I’m not denying anything. You seem to deny that context tells a tale here and what BEST fit is ‘brothers’ mean brothers. BTW, do you deny the scholars who know far more than me who agree with my understanding?​

Your responses to me do show some hostility.

 

[Dokimas]

St.Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 2:12-16 we read that the Gentiles will be judged by the natural law,Now is it natural for a couple to have relations that exclude the natural purpose of such relations?
According to the angel Rapheal it is not: for we read what he said to Tobias 6:16-18 “Then the angel Rapheal said to him(Tobias): Hear me, and i will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail17 For they who in such a manner recieve matrimony as to shut God out for themsleves and from thier mind, and give themselves over to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
The book of Tobias 8:5 “For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that do not know God”

The mating of a horse and mule is a sterile mating, for mules are infertile.
Shut God out: God as the author of life is shut out of a relation that can not recieve life.
So the doctrine against birth control is indeed from scripture.And from a knowledge of who God is.

Using Romans 2:12-16 is a bid stretch. Sorry I don’t accept Tobias as Scripture.​

Did you read my verses from Paul about NT marriage?

 

[Dokimas]

I think you are right about this. Logic is one important element, and does not contradict the Revelation of God, which is the most important element. there are times when Revelation does defy Logic, for example,that a Holy Omnipotent God would become man, and die for His creatures.

Just because you or I can’t figure how doesn’t mean it’s not logical.

 

[Dokimas]

It is important to distinguish between Sacred Tradition (which cannote be wrong) and the traditions of men, which can. The Catholic Church has both. The reason the Sacred Traditions cannot be wrong is that they are the Word of God, which is inspired and inerrant.

Something that’s against the Word of God can’t be correct no matter what you or I call it.

 

[Dokimas]

People do not become invested in things that don’t matter to them. Clearly you have significant feeling and interest in these matters, which demonstrate that you DO care. You may wish you did not, but Someone drew you here to CAF, and you are wrestling with how your beliefs differ from what the Apostles believed and taught.

No, the Catholic Church has Jesus as her Head, and the HS as her Soul. These divine elements are what make her infallible.

When you quote me I’d appreciate it if you quote me in context; the context of what I was answering. That’s the only way to know what I was saying.​

I sure do hope God sent me to communicate with you. I am not wrestling with my beliefs. And what you all say and how you say it makes me all the more believe what I believe. You have such a hard time that I could be content with my understandings, don’t you?​

The CC has made many mistakes; just look at its history. This is not a put down. I expect humans and human institutions to be fallible. We all are fallible and will be until Heaven.

 

[Dokimas]

Well, I think Dokimas would respond: it’s to have sex.

And sterile sex at that.

That does not sound very sexy to me. I dunno.

Thank you for putting words in my ‘mouth’.​

I have two children and my wife lost a third. No sterility here.​

Read Paul: he give no ‘command’ to have children but he does command that spouses are not to withhold sex from each other except for prayer. Paul knew the OT as a Pharasee. Did Jesus (in the NT) command us to have children? I can’t think of a verse; can you? I’d expect if having babies (instead of using birht control from time to time or often) was so important, Jesus would say something about it.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

I have not disrespected Mary. I may have disrespected your belief of Mary in your mind and I can’t help that. I think she’s a wonder example of how Christians should be. I’ve used her as an example a number of times in teaching ideas from the Bible.​

The word ‘until’ represents a period of time between two things in both cases: all the Lord Jesus’ enemies are not defeated yet so they are not yet under His feet. Therefore, Ps 110 is a good example showing how Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary until after Jesus was born.​

I’ve read the CC point of view through poster like yourself on the ‘brothers and sisters’ issue. It’s very shallow IMO. The same word is used for the relationship between Peter and Andrew and between James and John. Wher they brothers or not. Look back at the passage where Jesus was told His mother and brothers where there to see Him. He had a very interesting response. The (name removed by moderator)act of His statement in reply is nullified if you but ‘cousin’ instead of brother in His reply. Are you a spiritual cousin of Jesus or a spiritual brother (or sister) of Jesus?

I have been following your responses and they are right on. I also gave them the scriptyes you are talking about now, chapter and verse, but it seems to go no where. I hope you continure…great logic, and the Bible is the only Word that matters…As Paul said, keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Dokimas]

I have been following your responses and they are right on. I also gave them the scriptyes you are talking about now, chapter and verse, but it seems to go no where. I hope you continure…great logic, and the Bible is the only Word that matters…As Paul said, keep fighting the good fight.

Thank you, Leslie, for the encouragement.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for putting words in my ‘mouth’.​

I have two children and my wife lost a third. No sterility here.

Of course I wasn’t talking about you and your manhood, Dokimas!

I’m just saying that you advocate sterile sex–that is, sex that doesn’t produce children. Am I correct? Don’t you say it’s okay to contracept?

 

[PRmerger]

fbl asked:

.Probably the topic for another thread but [SIGN]what is the purpose of marriage, if not for bearing children?[/SIGN]

I responded:

Well, I think Dokimas would respond: it’s to have sex.

Dokimas, oddly, denies it here:

Thank you for putting words in my ‘mouth’.

Yet I have Dokimas’ words right here to clearly show he believes the purpose of marriage is to have sex.

Let’s look at the reason for marriage in the NT. Reading Paul, he’d want all of us to stay single so be can be more effective witnesses for Jesus. It’s hard to serve God when there’s a family involved. Paul says that if sexual passions can’t be controled, it is better to marry. If having chilcren was the command of God, Paul would not tell us not to marry. The reason he gives the okay if for sexual reasons. This is not a birth control teaching [SIGN]but it’s not a stretch to ‘read into’ a meaning that marriage is for sex [/SIGN](oneness, intimacy, closeness, physical love). There’s no NT command to have children. Why should there be when the Genesis command to replenish the earth is fulfilled. We don’t need more people. We need to preach the Gospel to those that are living now.

Your words, Dokimas, speak for themselves. I only re-posted for all to see. :ehh:

 

[PRmerger]

As for the use of the word “until” to describe Mary’s and Joseph’s supposed consummation…

Does it say in Scripture that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after the baby was born? I certainly could not find it anywhere in my Scriptural readings! Just that they had no relations UNTIL Jesus’ birth.

The word “until” does not indicate anything that occurred subsequently.

Here’s some examples of other verses which use the word “until” but don’t indicate what occurred afterwards…

In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (We can presume that she didn’t have children afterwards, either. )

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 1:13 [/BIBLEDRB]and [BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 4:13[/BIBLEDRB] are similar examples

 

[Dokimas]

Of course I wasn’t talking about you and your manhood, Dokimas!

I’m just saying that you advocate sterile sex–that is, sex that doesn’t produce children. Am I correct? Don’t you say it’s okay to contracept?

First of all thank you for asking me to be a friend. I think I accepted; I’m not sure if I did it correctly. I also don’t know exactly what that means but thank you anyway.​

I didn’t think you were questioning my manhood. What’s the measure of manhood anyway?​

If you were stating and now asking if I think contraception that doesn’t kill the baby is alright with God, I’d say yes, much is not most of the time.

 

[PRmerger]

First of all thank you for asking me to be a friend. I think I accepted; I’m not sure if I did it correctly. I also don’t know exactly what that means but thank you anyway.

]

All it means, besides the usual benefits that come with a friendship (albeit a "virtual friendship), really, is that you can see photos of me and my family, so you can attach a face to my name.

And, I assume that it keeps the dialogue civil and, well, “friendly”.

I attempted that with another poster and it did not help, so I happily “unfriended” her.

 

[Dokimas]

fbl asked:

I responded:

Dokimas, oddly, denies it here:

Yet I have Dokimas’ words right here to clearly show he believes the purpose of marriage is to have sex.
Your words, Dokimas, speak for themselves. I only re-posted for all to see. :ehh:

If I wasn’t clear, let me be clear. God has given most people a sex drive. As I understand Scripture, the only way to satisfy the sex drive with another person is in the context of marriage. Paul would ask us, for the sake of being free to minister, to supress the sex drive. He must have realized that would not be possible for many, if not most of us so he said to get married so we won’t burn. (I take is he means burn with passion toward an oposite sexed person.)​

Having children is wonderful. However, I would tell anyone who would listen, that it may be very dangerous having children in this prestent wicked age. (on many levels and for many reasons)​

Wasn’t it Jesus, speaking of the end of the age, that said that it would be very hard for a pregnant woman?