The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[SoothingDave]

If Mary had other children, why does John record Jesus as giving her to him as mother and him to her as son ? in Jewish society, surviving sons were required to support their mothers .

This seems, on the surface a reasonable question. Indeed, if Jesus had many "brothers and sisters" why would Jesus charge a non-family member to care after His mother. Doesn't seem to be following normal practice. Don't families usually take care of their own?

And this, by Big Mack, is what is termed by our esteemed opponents a "good response" worth slapping high fives and guffawing:

This has got to be the all time "twisting" of a reading that I have ever seen. Good job dadwags. :)

That's not even close to being an answer or an exchange of ideas. It is simply an accusation of "twisting" with no attempt to answer the quite logical question at all.

And now to the King Himself, our own Havoc. Here is his answer to the question:

This does not negate that duty. Jesus is King. He is also the Son of God and the First born natural heir of the line of David and to the Family. The family natural and spiritual responsibility first falls to Him. Or did you miss all these things in rush to make your point?

Say what? That doesn't even make any sense, yet it's all well and good enough for a high five. Maybe we should quit. I can't even find any logic in any of this. Let's try to break it down and see if that helps.

Question: Why did Jesus give His Mom to John's care if she had other children?

Answer: This does not negate that duty.

What does not negate what duty? Most people use antecdents before they use pronouns.

Jesus is King. He is also the Son of God and the First born natural heir of the line of David and to the Family.

OK. So what? Doesn't Jewish Law have provisions for who takes care of people when the "heir" dies?

The family natural and spiritual responsibility first falls to Him. Or did you miss all these things in rush to make your point

So He has the "natural and spiritual responsibility" to His family. We know that. Now why would he ignore custom and give his mom to someone outside the family, if he had these oodles of brothers and sisters? Strange, isn't it?

SD

[SoothingDave]

That's great except nobody ever gets to discover calculus.

If "calculus" is in there to be discovered, and someone wants to learn, he/she will surely get there.

True. But consider this. Those of us who know calculus have to take a constant beating from well-intentioned but mathematically uncurious people for "inventing" things that aren't in their "elementary mathematics" book. And rather than try to understand that the elements of elmentary math go together to make up calculus, they call us devils for refusing to stick to "just the elementary math book."

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, please clear this up for me, did allend actually give you a link that proves the Catholics know Mary had children after Jesus by their own CE website?

Tell me I missed something, my head is spinning.|-(

No. The site provided the typical sophomoric answers such as "in Old Testament days villagers, friends, and cousins were all called Brethren", and "how do you know brother didn't mean cousin or brethren"? The argument wasn't meant to satisfy anyone who might wish to explore the issue further.

I didn't mean to imply anything else from that site.

[al_c]

ALL: Wow ... we have reverted back to the early days of the Neverending Threads. Now we're discussing the meaning of brethren in relation to the perpetual virginity of Mary? How many times have we covered this one ... two, or was it three? To go along with that, the ugliness and downright unfriendlieness has reared its head again. So has the prideful patting on the back and comments like, "Congratulations, you're wearing them down." What's this all about? What is the prize that goes to the "victor" of these arguments? Can't these subjects be discussed in a more friendly manner?

Friday, October 19, 2001
Saints Isaac Jogues and John de Brebeuf, priests, martyrs, and their companions.

First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: Gospel:

Romans 4:1-8 Psalms 32:1-2, 5, 11 Luke 12:1-7 My confidence is placed in God who does not need our help for accomplishing his designs. Our single endeavor should be to give ourselves to the work and to be faithful to him, and not to spoil his work by our shortcomings.   -- St. Isaac Jogues

--------------------

Why is Abraham called the "father of all who believe" (Romans 4:11)? What's so great about his faith? Reading what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about faith (CCC, 142-184) is a good way to begin answering the question, especially where it describes faith as "a personal adherence of the whole man to God who reveals himself" (CCC, 176).

Obviously, Abraham didn't view faith as a simply intellectual matter. He wasn't like those people who say, "Oh yes, I believe that," and then contradict that belief by their actions. Not just Abraham's intellect, but his will and his entire self--"the whole man"--clung to the God who had revealed himself to him.

Abraham demonstrated obedient faith. When God told him to do something--even something wrenching, like leaving his native land or sacrificing his son (Genesis 12:1; 22:2)--he obeyed immediately. He also had trusting faith. Again and again, Abraham trusted that God would make good on his promise to give him a family, even though he and his wife were both old and childless. Such faith was "reckoned to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3). In other words, his readiness to believe made him acceptable and pleasing to God. Finally, Abraham's faith was active. It spilled over from his thinking into his desires and emotions and then into his actions.

How can we attain to a faith like Abraham's? Certainly not by straining to achieve it on our own! "Faith is a supernatural gift from God," the Catechism tells us. We can't believe without the "interior help of the Holy Spirit" (CCC, 179). The good news is that this help is near at hand. The faith of Abraham has already been planted in our hearts. As we affirm it and act on it, the Holy Spirit will cause it to blossom in every area of our lives.

Take a few minutes today to think about how your faith affects your practical decisions and actions. Don't get discouraged if you see areas in which you may fall short! God wants all of us to relate to him with obedient, trusting, active faith, and through the power of his Spirit, he can make all of us into heirs of Abraham's faith and trust.

Jesus, I believe. Help my unbelief. Increase my trust as I seek to follow you today. Abraham, my father in faith, pray for me!"

--------------------

Have a good day, everyone. And let's try and keep it civil today, eh?

[SoothingDave]

Care to take a stab at my question du jour? Is your understanding of God the same now as it was when you were first saved? Does that mean God or the Truth changed or does it mean you understanding grew?

Before I answer your question, answer some for me.

Always willing, as long as consideration is given to the answers. :-)

Aren't you one of those who chastise us proddies for supposedly believing in things that you say can't be tracked back to the first or second centuries?

I think that's fair. The beliefs, nor a people espousing these beliefs are not found in history.

Why is it that somehow your (RC) understanding grew and developed, but when we come up with something contrary to your beliefs (even if we cite Biblical support) you say it isn't what the apostles or church fathers wrote?

Because it isn't what the Church fathers wrote. That is, the Church Fathers give us a glimpse into what the early Church thought about such things. Consider it Biblical commentary from the first few centuries. We see a belief in unity around the Bishop and the Real Presence in the Eucharist there.

So which is it to be? You guys always want to have it both ways.

I don't understand the apparent conflict. Do you think perhaps that the beliefs you have now developed in time from the original ones? I just don't see that because I see negation. Surely Mary was revered early in the Church. That her role(s) and title(s) came as development doesn't mean there wasn't respect for her at the beginning.

For Protestant theology to be a "development" from the early fathers is to believe in total opposites. This isn't development. We can't have church fathers believing in the Real Presence "developing" into a purely symbolic gesture done infrequently. We can't have the belief in the authority of the Bishop "developing" into the ultra-individualist philosophy now found in Protestantism.

Catholic development is organic and has a continuity with the past. We don't negate, but explicate.

Protestant development is a break with continuity.

SD

Does your body ever hurt from the constant contortions you go through?

[SoothingDave]

Have a good day, everyone. And let's try and keep it civil today, eh?

Just remember that when I say "bite me" it really means "believe in me." :-)

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

at the exclusion of the context from the whole.

You are joking right.........BAHAHAHAHAHAH

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

Try putting yourself, at least in thought, amidst the tumult of real religious controversy,as in the 4th and fifth centuries which goes beyond mere scholastic squabbling, and results in the establishment of dogmas and the doctrines that flow logically from those dogmas. Thus, no Theotokos; no Christianity.

And we all wonder why catholics have so much trouble with the simple Word of God. :)

See what I mean re: post 1162

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

If you people insist on being this dense I'm afraid we'll have to stop.

Carefull Dave, if you stop you might have to go back to work. :)

BigMack

[al_c]

Just remember that when I say "bite me" it really means "believe in me." :-)

Dave ... I can feel the love in that reply. ;o)

[SoothingDave]

Not just images of people, but images of anything can be objects of great adoration.

Oh, no kidding Dave? I had absolutely no Idea. LOL. I mean I'm just a mere artist here, and art isn't *just* an ability to draw, sculpt or create. Art requires in the nature of the person: perception, feeling and understanding.

I was merely paraphrasing what I thought was your interpretation of the 2nd Commandment.

How do you do your art? What is an acceptable subject?

I usually do my art sitting down - it's more relaxing that way. As for subjects - Get your own ideas.

Excuse me for asking. I know I'm not the only one here who would like you to just put down your holy hat and try to clarify some of the stuff you said earlier. You seemed to be saying that the 2nd Commandment forbids the construction of any image of anything on earth under the seas or in the Heavens. And you yourself said you stopped doing portraits. I'm sorry I even asked what you do do art about. You could forget we are mortal enemies and just answer. Don't most artists like to talk about their work?

SD

[JHavard]

After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once... (1Cor 15:6)

And that doesn't even include all his sisters.

This is the first of your post that I have seen, and right now I have no idea what your agenda is, but regardless, that was one of the funniest comments I have seen on the "brother" question. ROTFLMBO :-)

[SoothingDave]

The site provided the typical sophomoric answers such as "in Old Testament days villagers, friends, and cousins were all called Brethren", and "how do you know brother didn't mean cousin or brethren"? The argument wasn't meant to satisfy anyone who might wish to explore the issue further.

If the answers are "sophomoric" and if you guys are done having a good self-congratulatory time, perhaps you can engage us on this point? I'd love to hear your "non-sophomoric" answers.

SD

[the808bass]

For if his mother had other children, then the birth narratives can be taken only as meaning that he was a great man or a prophet, but not the son of God, and Mary was in no sense Theotokos.

So, the miracle of the incarnation is such that Mary not only bore Jesus but that she also could bear no other children. I don't think that it follows that in order for the Incarnation to be valid that Mary must have no other children. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your rather frank statement (and the first I have seen of this).

[the808bass]

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene

Do you got the Greek version that has the commas?

[the808bass]

The beliefs, nor a people espousing these beliefs are not found in history.

Would you care to enumerate some of these so we could shoot em down? :)

[Havoc]

I'm not talking trump here. I'm talking about simple little things like taking the statment "Mary was the mother of Jesus" and "Jesus is God" and using logic to then say "Mary must have had God in her womb" The Bible never says in so many words "Mary carried God in her womb" but we can say it by deduction.

The Bible had no need to say such stupid things. The Lord does not tempt his people to sin. Nobody seems to care about such nonsense save those who want to base some blasphemous doctrine off of it that turns Mary into a Goddess complete with a multitude of names, followers, etc. Logic created that, not God's word - Logic. Ya'll created one error with word games and blew it into an even bigger one over time.

[the808bass]

My, you guys have marched on. Well, my history tells me that Heretics are seldom the innocent lambs as portrayed. For instance, the Donatists in North Africa had the same "attitude" as bin Laden

it is sometimes the case that a man who faces execution will find the need to re-examine the state of his soul and repent

[SoothingDave]

The beliefs, nor a people espousing these beliefs are not found in history.

Would you care to enumerate some of these so we could shoot em down? :)

Faith alone, Scripture alone (that is, not recognizing ecclesial authority), symbolic sacraments.

That's a start.

SD