Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

I like Cheese!

That 5 lb box of commodity cheese my grand mother used to get was great! :)

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

It may be organized in this legal fashion in order to efficiently operate in the various states in which it does, but this is a detail of the reality of operating a vast global enterprise in the 21st century.

UNAM SANCTAM

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Oh, it is a 21st century event. Thanks for the history lesson.

[OLD REGGIE]

No, it's what God says.

1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Correction; it's what Paul says. Read further in this chapter and you'll find Paul teaching what Jesus said.

Paul says - Jesus says --- big difference.

[SoothingDave]

I corrected my statement so that even you could understand it.

You never retracted your untrue statement.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Post 1348. Still there. You still haven't even attempted to acknowledge it.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

She couldn't be a "co-redemptress".

Scripture please.

[SoothingDave]

I'm not ignoring you, i'm just waiting for you to post something relevant.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Post 1348. Still there. You still haven't even attempted to acknowledge it.

If it makes ya feel any better, I have. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Is it possible Scripture wasn't written in English for a 21st Century American audience?

So you'd rather follow the men that brought you the homosexual/pedophile scandal than the Bible?

Why not answer the question, instead of slinging mud? Is this what you do when you have no answers, like when I posted 1348?

SD

[SoothingDave]

If it makes ya feel any better, I have. :-)

I appreciate it, but you're not on that "team" any more. ;-)

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I may be older than you but you're still the ugliest one of the group.

That may be true but God made me that way so that yo mama would have someone to look better than. :-)

[Uri’el-2012]

XS> I corrected my statement so that even you could understand it.

SD>You never retracted your untrue statement.

SD

Sorry Dave Now you are lying !

It was corrected and retracted in #1471.

Or did you fail to read.

This has become a personal attack.

Zot ?

[OLD REGGIE]

I'm so old I fart dust...no wait thats Reggie :)

Better than liquid dust though.

You're still as nasty as ever.

Last I heard you were planning on semi-retirement again. How's that working out?

[OLD REGGIE]

I'm not ignoring you, i'm just waiting for you to post something relevant.

And I'm still waiting for you to post something other than Apologetics propaganda.

[SoothingDave]

Sorry Dave Now you are lying !

It was corrected and retracted in #1471.

Post 1471:

XS>CtId confuses church with His roman Church. He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

Chuck, it's still a lie to say Citd or any Catholic thinks of his Church as "man made" or a "corporation."

You believe that. It is a lie to say that we do. And you said:

He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

That is untrue.

Dave; it is not a lie. It is simply imprecise. Allow me to make it more precise :

He thinks of Church as the man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

I will have to give you a "D" in linguistic parsing none the less.

1,471 posted on 02/23/2006 3:00:09 PM EST by XeniaSt

*****************************

Nowhere is this post did you retract your false statement that this Catholic (ctid) thinks of the church as a "man made corporation."

I've told you many times that is not how Catholicss think of the Church. We do not think of it as "man made." We do not view it as a legal entity (corporation).

When you retract your false statement I'll stop calling you on it.

*************************

Here is a section of the Baltimore Catechism:

136. What is the Church?

The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

137. Who founded the Church?

Jesus Christ founded the Church.

************************

Right here. First two questions. Shows you the Catholic teaching on what the Church is. It is the congregation of all baptised persons. (i.e. not a "corporation.") And it is founded by Jesus Christ (i.e. not "man-made.")

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Here is a section of the Baltimore Catechism:

136. What is the Church?

The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

Wow! Only those subject to the Pontiff can belong to this Church?

I guess the RCC still teaches that Unum Sanctum is an infallible pronouncement.

Rather an exclusive organization isn't it.

[wmfights]

"She couldn't be a "co-redemptress"."
___________________________________
John 6:40 "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Scripture repeats key issues over and over. Mary is a minor figure in SCRIPTURE only being mentioned half a dozen times.
In the above passage I don't see JESUS teaching us to pray to Mary or seek her for salvation.

[SoothingDave]

Wow! Only those subject to the Pontiff can belong to this Church?

Sure, unless they have invincble mental impediments to joining.

I guess the RCC still teaches that Unum Sanctum is an infallible pronouncement.

Were you under some other impression?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Were you under some other impression?

Not really. I was just waiting for your very imaginative "Catholic Dictionary" explanation that Unum Sanctum doesn't mean what it says.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Full Court,


I admire your zeal and passion for religion, that is a tremendous gift. I also admire your respect for Scripture.

I can certainly see that your belief that Jesus had brothers is entirely reasonable. After all, that's what the Word of God literally says, at least in my translation! One thing, however, is that none of us in this discussion believe that verse to be precisely true. We are all reading into that Scripture something else beside brother.

Some are reading it to mean half-brothers. That is, they had Mary as a mother, but not God as a father. To interpret it to mean full brother, the plain meaning of the text in translation, would mean there are multiple messiahs. None of us believe that. Now to believe that the term brother actually means "half-brother," children not born of God and Mary, but rather of Joesph and Mary is entirely reasonable, but it's good to recognize that we are reading something into Scripture that it does not actually say. To support this argument, we would have to argue pretty much in the same way that many have done on this thread, and say that the Greeks or Jews simply didn't have a word for half-brothers, although with a distant history of polygamy and concubinage among the Israelites and the Roman practice of serial monogamy, they may have had an intuitive understanding of the concept. The problem with this interpretation is that, according to Scripture, some of the people listed as his brothers appear to not have had the same Mother as Jesus.

There are of course other possible speculations besides interpreting this to mean that there were literally multiple Christs born of God and Mary. For example, we might believe that Joseph was a widower who had children from a previous marriage, and that these were the brothers spoken of in the text. A fine theory, but it's entirely speculative, as Scripture never says this is the case. Another problem with this theory is that the Mother of two of these brothers is still alive at the time of the Crucifixion, which would mean that Joseph either divorced Mary later on, was actually a divorcee at the time of his espousal to Mary, or that Joesph was married to more than one woman. Those are all problematic contingencies if we attempt to force them upon Scripture.

Another interpretation is that these "brothers" were cousins of some sort or other. (First cousin, second cousin, third cousin two times removed....) It's not an unreasonable argument, in that Scripture often mentions brothers and sisters when it is in fact seems to be talking about some other relationship. There are manyf examples of this, but one is the following:


"So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)


Now, we can see that there were a lot of Marys at the foot of the Cross with Jesus when he was dying. The Scripture I would like to call your attention to, however, is "standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary...." Now, if we take this translation in an entirely literal sense, Mary has a sister named Mary. That would be sort of like George Foreman's family, everybody gets named "George," So you have a George 1 and George 2, and George 3, and however many other sons named George that big George actually has. (I'm not making this up.) Perhaps a more plausible reading of this verse is to say that the language used in this Scripture did not distinguish between sister and cousin or other relative, even though our language forces us to translate in such a way as use a word that either conveys one class of relationship or the other. It's sort of like my Thai friends who's language specifies maternal vs paternal relations. As I understand it, if all I say to them is "my aunt," they are left in a pickle when they translate it, because they have to translate it into a word that means either "maternal aunt" or "paternal aunt," and they don't have enough information to do that.

Another problem that we Catholics have with the Scriptural reference to the brothers and sisters of Jesus is that Scripture else were tells us that at least two of them were not his actual brothers, so we have to assume that at least two of his presumptive (half) brothers are in fact cousins or other relatives. Scripture says His brothers' names were "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas." (Mark 6:3) Elsewhere, however, we learn that Joses and James actually had a different mother. (Mr 15:40, Mr 15:47.)

Paul describes James as the brother of our Lord. (Gal 1: 19) Jude describes himself as the brother of James. (Jude 1: 1) Luke describes Jude as the son of James (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13) Clearly, Scripture is not using the same degree of precision in describing relations that we typically use in English. And Scripture was not written in English.

When it gets right down to it, Full Court, we simply don't have any Scripture which says that Mary had any children besides Jesus. The broader context of Scripture insists that we believe that at least some of the people who are listed as brothers of our Lord in fact had a different Mother. Any claim that Mary had other children is in fact an inference, and not something that is actually stated in Scripture. Although you may reasonably believe the assertion that Mary did not have other biological children is unwarranted in Scripture, the Scripture never tells us that Mary had other children, and to believe that Mary had no other biological children is not a contradiction of Scripture.