For Faith: Sex Between a Married Couple

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Faith,
I am initiating a separate thread for the interfaith dialog.

Sex within the context of marriage is beautiful. The teaching of the Church is that we should not prevent the possibility of also having a child when we have sex. Sex within marriage is to build a bond between husband and wife and, possibly, to have children.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004

Answers

The main purpose of marriage is love. Love in imitation of the God's love, which always includes life.

There is nothing wrong with oral sex as a precursor to intercourse between married couples.

In Christ,

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004.


Here is another thread on  the subject.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004.


Scripture is clear that it is "God that opens and closes the womb." The Church teaches a form of "natural contraception," whereby avoidance of ovulation will prevent conception. But to complete the act of sex without giving God the opportunity to "open the womb," is an infringement on the will of God. That's His territory, ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.

Interestingly, Protestants held the same view as Catholics up until the 1930's and then slowly started to cave in, which is another example of the ever-changing world of Protestantism.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 03, 2004.


I wonder about those cesarean sections. Could it be that your doctor only favors that procedure for lack of competance in natural birth? These poor doctors are spooked with mal-practice suits and I would thing that they would take the safer path in baby deliveries.

...........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 03, 2004.


p class=MsoNormal>Faith, read this.  After you read it, let me know what problems, if any, you have with it.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004.


It is not proper to refer to Natural Family Planning (aka Natural Birth Regulation) as "natural contraception."
Why?
Because the word "contraception" contains the prefix "contra," which means "against." When actual contraception is used, the couple intentionally works against nature and God. They actively work to implement "contra/anti-(con)ception," putting up an artificial barrier to God's will.

People who use NFP merely observe periodic abstinence to space children. They never put up a barrier, never cause themselves to be infertile, and never perform an act that is "against" conception. They never forbid God to be God, as contraceptors do.

-- (Caution@Please.com), January 03, 2004.


That's correct, NFP does not erraticate the possibility of conception and that is why it is OK.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004.


GOD CLOSES THE WOMB

1) Genesis 20:18 "...the Lord had closed up every womb in Abimelech's household..."

2) 1 Samuel 1:5 "...the Lord had closed her womb..."

3) 2 Samuel 6:16,23 "...Michal daughter of Saul watched from the window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart...And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."

GOD OPENS WOMBS

1) Genesis 25:21 "Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant."

2) Luke 1:7,13 "But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren; and they were both well along in years...the angel said to him, 'Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son...'"

3) 1 Samuel 1:5,10,20 "..the Lord had closed her womb...Hannah wept much and prayed to the Lord...So in the course of time Hannah conceived and gave birth to a son."

Many, many more scriptures could be mentioned, but I'm sure they won't satisfy you, Faith. If you were truly a student of scripture, you would surely know that it is not "Nature" that gives us children, it is God!

How amusing!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 03, 2004.


Faith No one is saying you need to keep having more and more children. If there is legitamate reason not to (and you may well have legitamate reason from what you have said) then you may choose not to have more children. The only concern is that you do this in a moral fashion. "One may not do evil in order to bring about good." Given the extra-ordinary succesful nature of modern NFP this is the best bet. It also has other huge benifits: for instance, divorce among Catholics is about the same as society as a whole ~50%. For those who understand and follow the Church's teaching on cotraception and NFP the number drops to less than 2%. Add to that a regular bible study or prayer group (which I am sure you do) the number is less than 1%. NFP is like marriage insurance!

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 04, 2004.


To the top please

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 04, 2004.


And I see that you are once again ignoring scripture!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 04, 2004.

There is no other way to know - as the doctrinal chaos of your manmade tradition amply demonstrates. Which, I assume, is why you have ignored my requests for your explanation and justification of this sad state of affairs.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2004.

GOD CLOSES THE WOMB 1) Genesis 20:18 "...the Lord had closed up every womb in Abimelech's household..."

2) 1 Samuel 1:5 "...the Lord had closed her womb..."

3) 2 Samuel 6:16,23 "...Michal daughter of Saul watched from the window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart...And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."

GOD OPENS WOMBS

1) Genesis 25:21 "Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant."

2) Luke 1:7,13 "But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren; and they were both well along in years...the angel said to him, 'Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son...'"

3) 1 Samuel 1:5,10,20 "..the Lord had closed her womb...Hannah wept much and prayed to the Lord...So in the course of time Hannah conceived and gave birth to a son."

The Bible says it, Faith. I thought you read your Bible! Using YOUR rule-of-faith, you are wrong yet again. But can she admit it? No she can't because she'd have to eat a big old piece of humble pie.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 04, 2004.


The only time scripture refers to someone using birth control, someone dies; namely the gent who REFUSED to complete the sexual act so as to avoid conception. I would post the scripture, but for what?

I knew that you wouldn't respond to the scriptures I posted, because then you would have to admit that it is God "who opens and closes the womb" not NATURE as you have stated. Then you would have to adjust your theology once again, and even perhaps admit you were wrong.

Just for the record, Faith, you insulted me TREMENDOUSLY with your comment about all my work being "amusing" to you. I have gone about finding scripture, at your request, I have gone about finding early Church Father quotes, at your request. And it "amuses" you!! I find that to be supremely arrogant and mean-spirited, as if belittling me somehow scores you points!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 04, 2004.


Faith, your insulting message -- in which you said that Gail's hard work and sincere attempts to help were "amusing" (or "amused" you) -- was either on another thread or has been deleted from this one.

-- (a@b.c), January 05, 2004.


I have read the vatican-link , which Bill Nelson gave in this thread !!

So a question:

A married couple , who never can get children in the natural way , as I understand , they may not have sex ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 05, 2004.


Personally, I think people should stop calling each other names. You can refute points as much as you want. But you need have charity with each other.

This goes for the other 'Mary' thread as well.

Just my 2-cents....

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.


Faith says, "I am amused at your faith in the Roman religion. But this faith is not in the right place." (The Mary Thread) This was the response I got after spending hours looking for quotes she suggested she would take seriously. Which she quite obviously did not even pay a cursory glance, but instead was "amused."

Then she says, "Gail, get a grip. You're looking silly." Any why? For simply trying to give her an opportunity to correct her Nestorious comments.

Did you not even look at your own quotes, Faith? You refer to Christ as having "sides." That is Nestorian! How many sides do you think he has? Then you say Christ's resurrected body is not human. Then you say Christ's body is fleshless.

You do not even know how to describe Christ in a Biblical sense, but you come on this forum flitting from one thread to another giving us "Bible lessons."

Give me a break!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 05, 2004.


Here's what Faith says in response to the multiple scriptures I presented to her showing her that God is the one who "opens and closes wombs."

"Sorry Gail.., but you can't just slice out of Scripture what you like. You need to consider all of God's Word. I have no problem with the verses you provide."

SAY WHAT??? What cockamamie method do you use to "interpret" these clear passages of scripture. What support do you have anywhere in scripture (your sole rule of faith) to support artificial birth control? NOT ONE!!!

You lost this debate, Faith, because you cannot come up with one scripture to support artificial birth control, when there are dozens supporting Catholic teaching.

You lost the debate on Mary because Mary is the mother of Jesus the God/Man; 100% God 100% human FROM CONCEPTION!

You can close your ears, you can blind your eyes, but it doesn't change the truth, but then "You can't handle the truth."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 05, 2004.


C-sections have NOTHING whatsoever to do with conception.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 05, 2004.

Faith,

Praise God that C-sections are readily available in this country to bring your children, and others into the world. I'm sure that you are an excellent mother, and I am sure you'd agree that "children are a blessing from the Lord."

If we are talking about using methods to secure the safety of a child at birth, that's one thing. But I am talking about conception, and the use of artificial measures to STOP conception at the moment conception could possibly occur. It is God that gives LIFE, wouldn't you agree? And if a person uses artifical means to stop that conception, or will not allow the completion of the sexual act, she is putting up a roadblock and cheating God of His rightful providence to give life. Not only that, but sex becomes just a means for sexual gratification, which, as I am sure you already know, is "the way of the world."

Using NFP is a safe measure in which a couple completes the act of sex the way God intended, but still allows that "door to remain open" for God to bless them should He choose to do that.

If a couple is seriously opposed to more children, they should pray about it first of all, ask for God's guidance, and if they still feel reluctant, use restraint. It's not that hard to avoid ovulation. Women in third world contries use avoidance at times of ovulation and are VERY successful.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 05, 2004.


Medicines and doctors are gifts from God. He uses both of these means to provide healthier lives for people, and even to help birth life. Every single medical advancement ever made was because of the wisdom God gave at a specific time for a specific purpose.

You said, "We were created free-will beings by God. CONTROLING OUR DESTINY with respect to how many children we want--is not a sin., unless we are doing it in an immoral way, like by murder...."

Actually, giving God the authority in our lives to CONTROL OUR DESTINIES is what His Lordship is all about. Trusting Him with our bodies isn't always easy. But it is the highest good, and what all Christians must endeavor to do -- to perfection.

Where in scripture does give US the control of our destinies in any respect?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 05, 2004.


Could you provide a scripture which says we should base our moral decisions on "instinct"? Or that God wants us to do our own thing and let Him "work around" our sins?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2004.

You're defending your own actions, aren't you? Isn't the question self-serving? You will necessarily decide in your own favor; not according to the will of God.

He has total authority to command you. You have no authority to countermand Him. Think about that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2004.


Faith, you said "Are you that spiritually void--that you can't recognize God's providence in my *instincts* that I was blessed with the amount of children God wanted for me, and that this was in my spirit?"

No, I recognize that indeed it would be very wise that you avoid pregnancy at this point, the question is how to go about that "Biblically," with stepping on God's toes.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 06, 2004.


I have read the vatican-link , which Bill Nelson gave in this thread !! So a question:

A married couple , who never can get children in the natural way , as I understand , they may not have sex ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 05, 2004 ========= I'm not sure of the correct way to post an answer to a specific post so I copied and pasted the question above.

I do not complain to fully know the Church's teaching in this area. But as I understand, sex between a man and wife has a twofold purpose: 1) unitive and 2) procreative.

I believe that in cases of infertility, the Church does not say that the couple is not to have sex because the unitive aspect of sex remains and the couple is not doing anything to prevent conception. As previous posts have stated, it is God that opens and closes the womb.

I believe that's correct and am sorry if there's anything erroneous there.

God bless you,

Tico

-- Tico (Tico1267@catholicexchange.com), January 06, 2004.


Tico, That is correct, the potential is present for children, even though the probability is minimal. There have been instances in the past and documented in the Bible where 'infertile' women have born children (e.g., Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist.)

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 06, 2004.


God is the one who "opens and closes wombs." If what you say is true Gail -- then my sin isn't in artificial birth control, but in having c-sections to enable childbirth in the first place. Under your assumption -- God never opened my womb from the start......so having children in spite of "nature" is my sin.

Good grief! The phrase, "open the womb," clearly refers to giving birth by whatever means. A caesarian section opens the womb! Only a raving, literalist Fundy would think that "open the womb" must refer to natural childbrith alone.

I used that method all the time -- and always eventually got pregnant.

What method? Rhythm, which is no longer used? Or some form of modern NFP, which you didn't learn how to use properly?

At the age of 44 and after five c-sections, it would be a careless and irresponsible thing for me to rely on the luck of the draw. God made me smarter than that.

God never makes someone so "smart" as to commit mortal sins against him -- like using contraception or getting spayed like a cat. And this has nothing to do with "the luck of the draw." The blessing of new life is in the hands of divine Providence. He will not force upon you more than he knows you can bear.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 06, 2004.


The first paragraph was supposed to be all in italics, the first line coming from one person and the rest from another -- like this -----

God is the one who "opens and closes wombs."
If what you say is true Gail -- then my sin isn't in artificial birth control, but in having c-sections to enable childbirth in the first place. Under your assumption -- God never opened my womb from the start......so having children in spite of "nature" is my sin.


-- (The@Scoop.com), January 06, 2004.


"In truth, I can find reasons in the Scriptures--not to support contraception. But I can also find reasons in the Scriptures to be responsible and to u8se our better judgement about things"

A: This is precisely the problem with private interpretation of scripture. You can always find passages which can be privately interpreted to support - or to oppose - any position you can name. And human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that the interpretations you finally settle on will be the ones which appear to support whatever it is you want to support. That's why there are denominations, in direct violation of everything Jesus taught about the Church. And that is why Jesus gave full authority to teach and interpret His Word to one Church only - the one He personally founded - so that people might actually be able to KNOW the meaning of His Word, accurately and authoritatively, and not end up searching through scripture desperately trying to find something they can interpret in support of their preconceived beliefs, and then when they find it and self-interpret it, thinking that their beliefs actually came from the Word of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 06, 2004.


I am forgiven in Christ, and stand *not condemned* according to Scripture. And I know that this means for all sin, past, present and future. (emphasis added)

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read in my entire life. No sane person thinks that his/her future sins have already been "forgiven." The people who think such a thing use it as an excuse for sinning! ("Oh, heck. I'm forgiven already anyway, so let's go for it, baby!") These self-deceiving loonies (apparently including you, Faith) will not be smiling on Judgment Day. God will not be mocked.

The only sins of yours that have been forgiven are those PAST sins you confessed in the Sacrament as a Catholic -- and any PAST sins (that you committed since leaving the Church) for which you had perfect contrition. You are NOT forgiven of sins you are committing right now -- such as trying to lead us into heresy ... and you are NOT forgiven of sins you will commit in the future ... UNTIL such time as you repent of them. No one can repent of sins "in advance."

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 07, 2004.


Faith needs to hear Cindy Brown's testimony.

Can someone please find it and bump it for her?

Cindy underwent a tubal whatchamacalit, and had pretty much the same thoughts as Faith. Then she realized her error, confessed her sin, and went above and beyond the call to repentance and had it reversed.

Faith, I believe you are rationalizing your sin. I know you feel the difference between contraceptive sex and a loving, giving, free union between you and your husband. I know you feel the difference. You should stop pretending that there is no difference, because the pain you feel while having contraceptive sex is the voice of God.

While your husband is giving all he has, you cannot possibly recieve all that he has given. In turn he does not recieve all of what you have! The skin contact and the physical sexual sensations might all be there. But you and I know that something is missing.

Be healed, and know the love of God.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.


To Tico , or anyone else ,

if a couple can't get children , than has sex totally no meaning , why than they would need/have sex ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 07, 2004.


Laurent,
Read what he said "sex between a man and wife has a twofold purpose: 1) unitive and 2) procreative. " It answers your question.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.


If you take the bible literaly then there are many things wrong with it... i do not believe it was meant to be taken literaly. If so then what about what galileo proved...

-- Steven Zimmer (stevenzimmer_krug@sasktel.net), January 09, 2004.

There are many parts of scripture that are meant to be taken literally, and many parts that are not. The first step in accurate exegesis is knowing which is which. Unauthorized interpreters are not even able to make this most basic distinction.

-- Paul M. (Pau7lCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2004.

It is of no surprise that John is author of the book of Revelation.

Very few scholars believe that the John that wrote the Gospel of John was the same person that wrote the Book of Revelation.

From the New American Bible introduction to Revelations: The author of the book calls himself John (R ev 1:1, 4 , 9 ; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (R ev 1:4- 3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

Very typically, Faith selects the very gospel most relevant to our faith, John's-- to sentence as ''symbolic language.''

Is it a coincidence? No. Her false sect denies the intercession of Mary. John shows it to us clearly. (John Chapt. 2) --Her heresy denies the Real Presence of Christ's sacred body and precious blood in the sacrament He instituted at the last Supper; completely supported in John 6,:54 The instituting by Christ of the sacrament of penance-- priests able to forgive men's sins, (John 20, :22); and Peter's appointments to be the Church's leader. (Chapt 21, :15)

Faith MUST call John a figurative writer. An apostle, but not to be taken literally!

Isn't that a hoot? John's gospel destroys all her pretensions. It disproves all her most serious heresies! Poor Faith; makes a liar out of John the apostle (as well as of Our Lord.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.


''You are too funny!'' [isn't] John's gospel the one that describes Jesus as the *good shepherd*., *the light of the world* and the *true vine?*

No; John wrote down Christ's own words. John invented NOTHING; he wrote only the truth. And some passages are true even if they are metaphorical or parabolical. When Christ said ''My flesh is food indeed'' and later at the last supper, ''Take and eat, this is my body,'' His words were absolute truth.

The word ''indeed'' cannot be a metaphorical disclaimer. It means FOR A FACT. Neither is the word EAT. We do not eat metaphorically or symbolically. We eat FOOD, and Christ said ''My flesh is FOOD indeed.'' --You are too funny!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.


Jesus didn't say "I am a REAL lampstand", or "I am an ACTUAL gate", or "I am a REAL vine". Also, the analogies are obvious. A person enters through a gate; we enter eternal life through Him. The branches receive life from the vine; we receive life from Him. His description of the Eucharist is entirely distinct from such analogies. He said "My flesh is REAL food; my blood is REAL drink". REAL - the OPPOSITE of figurative or symbolic. Furthermore, there is no logical analogy between a human body and a dinner role. Jesus was a master of analogy. If He was attempting to make an analogy here, He missed the mark badly.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2004.

What does your Church say? It attributes the book of Revelation to St.John..,right?

The New American Bible is one of the approved Bibles for Catholics. So, as my quote showed my Church does not necessarily attribute the Book of Revelation directly to John the Apostle. She does not deny it either, just pointing out that many (most?) scholars now say it was probably written by a different man who very well could have been a disciple of John’s.

Note that in the Book of Revelation, the author, the implied author, and the narrator are all named John, it is very likely they are not the same John.

The fact that not all There were groups of Christians in the second and third centuries, when lists of which books were to be included in the New Testament were being developed, who did not include Revelation on their lists. If it had been certain that one of the twelve disciples had written Revelation, then no group of Christians would have been able to keep Revelation off of their list of New Testament books.

You seem to base a lot of your 'truths' on gut feelings. That can be dangerous.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.


oops pushed send too quickly:

corrected paragraph:

The fact that not all groups of Christians in the second and third centuries included the Book of Revelation in their lists of books to be included in the New Testament presents a problem. If it had been certain that one of the twelve disciples had written Revelation, then no group of Christians would have been able to keep Revelation off of their list of New Testament books.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.


What is it about INDEED you fail to understand, Faith? Why did Christ take the bread into His hands at all? How would the apostles' eating of it make anyone THINK it's a symbol? Or-- didn't they actually eat it? Jesus TOLD them to!

Is the last Supper narrative simply another ''parable,'' or did Christ break bread? You confuse easily. John doesn't seem at all confused writing about this. He is direct; Jesus said ''My flesh (not my parable) is food indeed.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.


Only if you doubt the words of Jesus Christ. We know what His meaning is. You just want it all symbolic; and think that's no contradiction. In fact, it is literal in the eating of His flesh; and not at all symbolic for Him to say we shall not hunger. We will continue to eat a daily bread, and not hunger physically. But His body and blood are the food and drink of eternal life. Unless to YOU eternal life is symbolic and just a figure of speech?

You can't have it both ways. If you say His words are not to understand literally (because of an anti- apostolic agenda), then you don't believe in everlasting life. Poor, confused Faith. You're out of arguments!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.


But Faith you take EXACTLY the same position as those disciples who LEFT Christ and stopped following Him because of His words. Why didn't Christ stop them, and say "Hey guys, only speaking figuratively." But no, he looks at the rest of His disciples, and says "So are you going to leave too?"

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2004.


Just my hobby horse, but none of the self-described "scripture scholars" who deny that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels named after them - or the epistles named after them, or Revelation...have proven this other than to quibble about word counts, different Greek dialects, and different phrases.

But duh! If you write letters, a gospel, and a prophecy over a 20-40 year period, learning ever better Greek while living and ministering among the Greeks, wouldn't you expect your style and word use to change somewhat? Of course! So why is John the Apostle assumed to be stuck in one style and one set of vocabulary and dialect?

I'm sorry, but I have zero respect for these high-horse self- important "theologians" or "scripture-scholars" who get in high dungeon because the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation seem to have slightly different styles and thus they proclaim, their work really wasn't theirs but some anonymous "disciple within his tradition". Yeah, right.

I can write in vastly different styles. Give me 40 years and different audiences and writing material (a treatise, a letter to a friend, a poem) and guess what? My word choices, my turns of phrase, and my "tone" will be different too... would that mean there are 2, 3, or more "authors"?

It's like they can't see the forest for the trees, so eager they are to come up with a new explaination, or ANY explaination other than the traditional one that links the author of the book to the one who the book or letter itself attests wrote the thing!

Finally a bit of motive: I've seen more kids' faith undermined with this psuedo-intellectual deceit of saying "well, we're sure that John the Apostle didn't write this but that's OK because it's still authoritative". REALLY? WHY? IF THE EYE WITNESS DIDN'T WRITE IT, AND IT WAS WRITTEN LATER BY "UN-NAMED DISCIPLES" DON'T YOU SEE THE SEED OF DOUBT BEING PLANTED? KIDS DO!

These are the same sort of people who claim that Jericho's walls COULDN'T HAVE COME DOWN MIRACULOUSLY. Anytime you try to disprove the occurance of an event that was reportedly a miracle, you set yourself up for failure: proof is eactly what you won't easily find when the normal laws of nature are temporarily suspended!

It's just so mind-numbingly obvious to me. Yet year in and year out we have "scholars" blather on about "Gospel Q" which "had" to have been the source material for Matthew and Mark...while none consider that if the Matthew himself wrote "Matthew" and if Mark himself was Peter's disciple, (as Luke was Paul's, and probably knew both John and Mary personally) that they wouldn't NEED another source! THEY WERE OR HAD EYE WITNESSES TO DRAW FROM!

And of course, none of these "brilliant" scholars seem to have considered the obvious fact either that the whole first generation Christian body most likely KNEW EACH OTHER. It's not as though they were separated and never had meetings...

But hey, how else are scripture scholars to make a living unless they come up with insane theories, help undermine the faith of children and the simple (nuns, active lay persons, etc), and foster strategic doubt as to the veracity of the events they've spent a life time studying? Their only claim to fame (and fortune) is found when they help destroy the faith rather than enhance it. Pity. fools.

-- Joseph (joestong@yahoo.com), January 12, 2004.


You are in the footsteps of the ''unbelieving Jews'', Faith. The apostles were all ''believing Jews''.

Those disciples who would no longer follow Christ were unwilling to accept the literal and direct words of Jesus. ''My flesh is food INDEED!'' They would have LOVED it if the actual interpretation of those words had been ''figurative only.'' Here we realise, He wasn't backing down in order to stop them from going.

Right from the beginning of his public ministry Jesus took pains to instruct His followers: To enter the kingdom of heaven a faith was required far above all understanding. Faith to move a mountain and command it to fall into the sea! He expected them to believe against even REASON. Why ? ? ?

Because the day was soon coming when He was to tell them: ''Take and eat; this is my BODY, and Drink: this is the cup of My BLOOD''.

A truth not seen by eyes, but by complete FAITH in His Word alone!

I need have no ''faith'' just to stab at an explanation like you, Faith; that He meant ''spiritual'' food, not literal. You seem to call yourself a believer, but your faith is insufficient for the kingdom of God. You are an ''unbelieving Jew'', nothing more.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.


-

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.

You have no leg to stand on anymore, Faith. Only dogged pride. The apostles went forth after Pentecost to teach the whole Christian world EXACTLY what we've told you here. Not what you cling to like a limpet, your denial of Christ's holy words. You can argue, but the Bible says your faith is deficient. SainT Paul calls the mystery of the bread and wine undeniably body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor :26--29) and he taught this as an apostle. So did all the apostles, as they carried the Gospel to the nations. If they'd taught us instead that only a symbol was meant by that mystery, the Church would be teaching that today.

Because the Church is faithful to the apostle's teachings. You, however are not faithful. You have embraced a gospel of men. A heretical and condemned teaching made anathema by Saint Paul. You were taught a different gospel from the one Paul taught, which makes you anathema.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.


But, it would seem that you are more like those unbelieving Jews. You too, mistake his deeper revelation, which is that he is God, for a literal understanding which is that Jesus is bread., or that the bread is Jesus. In any respect, the unbelieving Jews at least recognized that what Jesus was purporting was against Jewish Law--if indeed what Jesus was purporting were literal. But it was not.

Surely Jesus wouldn't have expected the Jewish hearers to literally eat Him. That amounts to canabalism if nothing more...

Aren't you the one who said what is a parable, is and what isn't, isn't. It is pretty obvious that Jesus was not talking in parables at this particular time in the last supper. So what was He talking about? Not canabalism, surely. But what?

The Jews of His day thought it was canabalism and many of them rebelled at the idea of eating His flesh and blood. Yet, Jesus did not take the command back. Instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein). The difference is that in partaking of the Eucharist we do not eat it as in normal food, instead we incorporate Him. "The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" (John 6:52)

"Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

For more information look here.

In Christ,


-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 12, 2004.


My point is that the Jews were hiding behind that excuse not follow Jesus--but were in fact rejecting the real message of Jesus-- which is that he was sent from heaven--or in clearer words, that he was God.

Good point!

The Jews rejection had nothing to do with the eating of literal body and blood. They were rejecting the cross of Christ! They were rejecting their prophesied Messiah.

Both are true

Take care,
I still think this is an interesting discussion ;)



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 12, 2004.


The New American Standard Version says in vs. 60 of Chapter 60, "Many therefore of his DISCIPLES when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statment, who can listen to it," and then in vs. 66 "As a result of this MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES WITHDREW, AND WERE NOT WALKING WITH HIM ANYMORE." You have clearly put yourself among the "withdrawing disciples," with your torture of these passages.

They were disciples; ie, followers of Christ, Faith. You are reading into the text, again, what you wish it to say.

I have showed you that HISTORICALLY transubstantiation was the normative teaching of these passages. We have shown you the CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR teachings of scripture with Christ's own words and yet you refuse to believe!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2004.


Of course, that's ridiculous, Faith. You have no respect at all for the Word of God. Gail isn't ''harping''. Gail gave you all the benefit of her own faith. Her faith in the Bible's truth, her faith in God and her faith in your inherent good will. But you have another agenda besides God's Word. We all know it by now.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2004.

Faith says "Jews were not walking away because they didn't accepts Jesus' words in the literal sense." Ahhhh, yet another uneducated GUESS!!!! Were you there 2,000 years ago, Faith? Can you now read their minds to determine what they were thinking when they stopped following Christ? YOU ARE SIMPLY AMAZING!! Can you even admit that scripture says they were "disciples" and not "unbelieving Jews" AS YOU mis-QUOTED?

You just CANNOT stand to be shown ANYTHING in scripture. Your pride is palpable! You are truly your own god, Faith. You think scripture means ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO MEAN!! I was not harping at you AT ALL. I gave you a reasonable, intellectually honest, and historically proven EXEGETE of this passage. And you just can't stand it!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2004.


Dear Gail:
It would chill our blood to see the number of so-called believers in Jesus Christ who would support a person like Faith; her interpretations of the Bible truth.

We mustn't let the rejection trouble us. Our part is to serve Jesus Christ faithfully and trust in His mercy.

We know He has called Faith back to the fold by our efforts and faith. He loves her, and he wants her to bring her own children out of the sink of ignorance she has them in now. We can only pray that the overwhelming power of his grace prods her.

We are up against not just the devil who prevents her from understanding; but her enchantment with the Bible itself, over which she's abandoned all desire to learn.

Her gospel is the weed planted by an enemy; in the field where the sower of the parable worked. (Matt 13 :26). ''Faith'' is a sprout from that bad seed. The Holy Bible was sown in that field; seed with salvation to come. You must know, the Bible is itself pure. But an enemy came and sowed another seed which is not the truth presented in the Bible.

Faith cannot tell the difference right now. She thinks she's honoring the Bible when she cooks up ridiculous interpretations; A form of idolatry. You were into Sola Scriptura and must recall what power the Bible had over you. It was mesmerizing. She is under that spell, and also hampered by overweening pride. Pray God to save her from herself. We must place all our faith in Him. Not our own ability to convince.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.


''...and I pointed out that what they rejected was not that at all- - but they rejected Jesus as being from heaven.''

You pointed out wrongly. It isn't for the first time. The ones who abandoned the Lord (Disciples who left) clearly said WHY, and the words are: ''How can this man give us His flesh to eat?''

Pretty airtight. Faith can't interpret BEANS. Yet, she says Gail ''side-stepped'' that point! Who needed to side-step something so unmistakably false? A false interpretation of a straightforward saying of the Son of God!

To intentionally misconstue the truth coming from God's own mouth is a sin, Faith. The sin of blasphemy and/or the sin of bearing false witness.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.


You conveniently forget how Saint John calls these people Christ's disciples. That's what they were to that point in the narrative. Just like YOU do, as soon as He told them something that required true FAITH, they ditched Him. He went on very deliberately without them.

Your own lack of faith is just as unworthy of a believer. You're an UN-believer. Jesus will go on without you too. That was your decision.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.


Jesus identified Himself as the bread of life which came down from heaven very early in this discourse. (verse 48) It was only after He spoke of eating His flesh (verse 51) that the Jews became agitated. They began to argue at that point. What were they arguing about? "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" (verse 52) That's what they argued about - nothing else. But Jesus didn't back down. On the contrary, He told them "... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves" (verse 53). Some of them still hoped He might be speaking figuratively, but Jesus came on even stronger. "My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink (verse 55). He tells them outright - "My flesh is TRUE food, not symbolic. My blood is TRUE drink, not symbolic." Only after Jesus drives home the fact that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood do his listeners reach the point where they can take no more, and walk away saying "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it"? The answer to that question is, of course, His Church. The Church which many of His listeners abandoned on that day. The Church which many more of His followers abandoned in the 16th century. The True Church. The Pillar and Foundation of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2004.

No-one goes "only to Purgatory". Anyone who is in Purgatory - unlike those still on earth - is already saved by the blood of Jesus. If the sacrifice of Jesus was insufficient, no-one could be saved, and therefore no-one could enter Purgatory.

Anyone can "lead you to heaven"; but only Jesus can open the gate, which He did on the cross.

Any quandary you find in Catholic teaching can easily be resolved by a little study. Since truth cannot conflict with truth, Catholic teaching, which is the fullness of Christian truth, cannot include any objective quandaries. Hence, any subjective quandaries you experience are invariably the result of inadequate understanding. Of course, if you are not open to understanding, then you'll just have to live in a state of perpetual subjective quandary. If I were a Protestant, I'd consider it a major quandary that every other denomination disagrees with at least some of my beliefs. How can that be reconciled with the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL TRUTH?? Now, there is a quandary!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2004.


''we are a spiritual body of true believers...and no earthly institution or religious organization can take from Him, those who are His.'' /

BEE ESS! Where did you pick up this baloney ??? Your sins have never been forgiven, because you don't repent. You malign the Church, the Holy Spirit, and the Mother of Our Saviour. If you're a believer, heaven is empty right now.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.


".....Like I have said before--he protects us from division because we are a spiritual body of true believers...and no earthly institution or religious organization can take from Him, those who are His."

Ever turned on TBN, for the heretic of the month? Or looked in the Yellowpages under "Church" Good grief, give me a break . . .

Protestantism is and will continue to "do itself in." A kingdom divided against itself shall not stand!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.


Not only that; Faith isn't spiritual at all! She is merely self-absorbed and fanatical.

If that appears ad hominem in argument, I'm sorry. Faith is not exempt from the truth. To pretend she's a ''spiritual member,'' of some unaccountable and unknown Church of her imagination isn't even an exercise of her spirit. It's an ego-trip and self-deception. There's ample proof available here in her numerous posts. Hardly anything in them bears resemblance to what God has done, or historical evidence, or any disposition in her toward the holy life. All her Bible study has been for nothing, as evidenced by her ludicrous twisting of the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

It would have been unkind and unchristian to reply to faith rudely over and over again, but I feel an obligation to lower her beastly pride down to the ground for the honor and glory of God and His saints. Someone has to do it. An unholy temple should be reduced to rubble, and that's what Faith's delusion is, unholy. It's too bad!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.


There is a world of difference between division and fragmentation WITHIN a body, as in Protestantism, vs. a departure FROM a body, as in the Protestant Rebellion. What they abandoned remained fully unified, just as Christ said it would until the end of time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 16, 2004.

An example of fuzzy logic:
''For centuries, the Bishop of Rome was chosen by the *local* citizens-- clergy and laity. (NOT SO.) If he had jurisdiction over a universal church-- wouldn't the rest of the world want a say in his appointment?''

Absolutely not; it is the Holy Spirit who chooses a Pope. Just as it was Christ who chose Peter.

''The rest of the world'' is not a party to the Pope's succession, because God is at work in his Church, not the world. You, of course haven't a clue about either the Church or God. All you know actually about God and his people is ZILCH. Practically nothing.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.


Faith, if none of them are the right one, then you're not in the right one either!

Gail

P.S. "Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]" Ignatius of Antioch,To the Philadelphians,3 (A.D. 110),in ANF,I:80

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.


''The church of Jesus Christ can not be divided or destroyed because it is a spiritual body that exists in the hearts of all believers.''- ----------- That's not taught in the Bible, Faith /

But there is no perfect physical institution......not one.

The Catholic Church is not physical, as if mortar and bricks. She is living and true to her divine Founder. He is indeed perfect; and His Holy Spirit is perfect; abiding in the Church-- in the world. Since He depends on us for the ''physical'' abiding, we constitute the believers, He is their perfection. The Church then IS perfect. Holy and divine.

Nothing of that sort is of any heretical sects. They are altogether physical, not spiritual. Their faith is deficient, and they teach one another errors. Such as you came here to teach, --unsuccessfully.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.


Well, then, it's just "me, Jesus and the Bible," left to flounder from one denomination to another. Ripe for the picken's. Waiting for the next vulture to fall on the prey. If you don't like the authority in one church, you just go to the next. That's not very plausible, especially in light of the authority Christ gives to the Church. By your definition of "church" any church will do. All they have to do is call themselves a church, and Christ gives them the keys. There is not even a common creed amongst Protestants; not one set of simple doctrines in which they can all agree.

Faith, surely your church has a set of doctrines that it believes. What are those doctrines and who set them forth?

Gail

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.


Faith, here are just a few things facing the Baptist Church of today. BTW, this was taken from a Baptist website.

The Reformed Debate

In addition to the long-running debate over Baptist origins, a new debate has come into play here in the past twenty years: the question over whether or not Baptists (and particularly Southern Baptists) are historically Calvinists. The Founders Journal (see below), along with Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is doing an admirable job in championing the belief that Southern Baptists have always been strict (5 point) Calvinists. Their efforts do fall short of the truth, however, for although Baptists (including Southern Baptists) have certainly been influenced by Calvinism, they have also been much influenced by Arminianism, which historically served to moderate Calvinism and produce an evangelistic theology. Most Baptists today hold beliefs from both Calvinistic and Arminian schools of thought. This current Calvinistic debate about Baptist history began among historians, but is now affecting many Baptist churches throughout America. The reader will note that a number of the online Baptist history resources listed below are from the Reformed (or Calvinist) perspective.

The Southern Baptist Controversy

Finally, the 1980s to the present have witnessed a new fundamentalist controversy (also often referred to as a "political" and "biblical" controversy) within the largest Baptist denomination which has altered the course of Southern Baptist history. The minority fundamentalists, now firmly in charge of the national Southern Baptist Convention, have changed the direction and nature of the Convention, resulting in the first statistical decline of the denomination in some 75 years. They have sought to re-fashion Baptist history to validate their theology and their insurgency, and as a result have caused much confusion about Baptist history among Baptist laity.

Whereas Baptists have historically been non-creedal, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC is forcing creedalism upon Southern Baptists through the forced implementation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Whereas Southern Baptists have traditionally believed in the Priesthood of all Believers, the fundamentalist leadership positions pastoral authority above the Priesthood of Believers. Whereas Baptists have historically held to the authority of Scripture and looked to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the criterion for interpreting the Bible, the fundamentalist leadership claims that looking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the authority for faith is a liberal position. Instead, they have positioned the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as the only valid way in which to approach Scripture.

As such, THE FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERSHIP OF THE SBC IS BENT UPON REFASHIONING SOUTHERN BAPTIST DOCTRINE AND POLITY INTO THE HISTORICAL ROMAN CATHOLIC MODEL OF CREEDALISM and religious hierarchy. This agenda continues to cause much division among Baptists, including splits on the state level of Baptist life. Currently, Texas, Virginia and Missouri each have two competing Baptist conventions, with one convention in each state pledging loyalty to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and the other convention in each state contending that the Bible supercedes any human creeds.

Here's the site http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

Gail

P.S. BTW, Catholics would agree with almost everything you posted as to your church's beliefs!!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.


Good post Faith. Only real issue I have is with this: The sole basis for our belief is the Bible, which is uniquely God- inspired, without error, and the final authority on all matters on which it bears. As the Bible teaches, there is one God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - each possessing all the attributes of Deity.

No surprise, I am sure. There is aboslutely nothing in the Bible to directly support this. Nor in anything Christ said. In fact, there is a lot that says it is not true. God sent HIS SON, not another version of the Bible, to earth to save mankind. Christ did NOT write any book, instead He created a Church to pass along His heritage. Our faith should be in Him not in any book.

Take care,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.


Hooray! At last we know which one of the 20,000 conflicting manmade denominations of Protestantism is "purely biblical"! (Whichever one you ask, of course).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

There it is:

''I have always maintained that no religion gets it 100% right. That is why I know and-- I believe I have found . . .'' It's I, I, I, just ONE fixation, anything I say-- The private knowledge coming from Faith's brain.

When do we see Faith saying, ''Christ has, --God knows, or, --Jesus taught,'' -- ? ? ? Never. It's HER opinion, her learning and her views that make up God's Will, and that makes the Bible say; and tells the world what--! No God, No Church, No authority and nothing ELSE we see; but Faith's truth. We ought to dump Jesus Christ and worship Faith and her Bible!

Here is the most self-centered Bible-Thumper who ever came to our forum! If only she spoke the truth ocassionally? Just a particle of real truth?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2004.


Faith, every denomination from Lutheranism to Presybertian to Methodism, to UPC to Word of Faith, to Assemblies of God, even the cults like JW and Mormon claim to be based on THE BIBLE. You belong to just one of many who claim they have the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

I am truly shocked that you seem to have an aversion to the Southern Baptists. How many different Baptist sects are there?

It seems you mentioned that you have been away from the Catholic church for 8 years (if my memory serves me) and already you are close to denying essential Christian doctrines; i.e. Christ was conceived and born God/Man by the Virgin Mary and Holy Spirit. You have strayed way way off the beaten path, Faith, even by mainline Protestant standards. I wonder how far you will have gone astray in another 8 years.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.


"Your church has unbiblical traditions and my church does not. We are purely biblical."

A: Attempting to be "purely biblical" is clearly an unbiblical tradition, as you have repeatedly demonstrated by your inability to provide bibical support for the custom.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.


Once again, it is all in the interpretation. I interpret Christ words as saying, "She (Mary) is blessed because she listened and obeyed."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

That's your interpretation Faith. Why is your's better than mine? I see that Christ did his first miracle of turning water into wine at his mother's request. I see that one of the last things Christ said on the cross was concerning the welfare of his mother. I see that Christ honored his mother as is commanded by the 10 commandments.

She is not elevated above Christ, but she is our "Mother in the Lord." We have many "mothers in the Lord," and "fathers in the Lord," and "sisters in the Lord," etc., but Mary is the mother of all mothers, so to speak. She did something no other human being has ever done.

And yes, there probably are those in the Church who's veneration has turned into worship. But that is NOT Catholic teaching as is so abundantly clear by the very words of our Catechism.

I think we need to just agree to disagree on this and other Catholic subjects. You see it your way, and I see it mine. You think you're right, I think I'm right. I think it's time to put this thread to bed, especially since it has veered so FAR off topic.

gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.


unbold

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

Hearing and obeying is EXACTLY what Mary did! Christ honored His mother, NOT above himself, but he honored her perfectly, EXACTLY as a son should honor His mother! That is what we do, honor her, as Christ HONORED HER!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

As a recovering Protestant I can see Faith's side of this arguement. Non-Catholics are uncomfortable with veneration of anyone besides Our Lord and Jesus Christ. The problem you have Faith is that love is boundless and infinite. You can love God and Jesus AND Mary.

Worship of Mary as a goddess is a sin for a Catholic. She is not to be seen as an equal of God or Jesus but... she is the most perfect human being who has ever and likely will ever live. That entitles her to our respect.

I find it unbelievable that mant protestants seem to trive on tearing Mary down. They say she had children after Christ which shows the danger of following people who read the Bible without any linguistic or ancient language knowledge. Brother=cousin in Hebrew, but since KJV says brother well thats all protestents quote. Showing such disrespect for a woman whom God Himself picked is heresy.

I have fought every Protestant/Catholic battle in my mind and with my wonderful Catholic wife and in the words of Star Trek's Borg "Resistance is futile". The Truth keeps getting in the way of any remaining rebelliousness in me. I almost feel like I am in a 12 step program saying: Hi Im David and I am an Episcopalian.

Faith I hope you remain on this forum as in the end you will be aware of the Truth. You will then be able to make a very informed decision to accept it or not.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 17, 2004.


Hey, David, God Bless you,

"The Truth keeps getting in the way of any remaining rebelliousness in me." Ohhhhh, I can relate. I fought for two years before giving in. As someone said (maybe Chesterton or Newman) the magnet finally has its way, you can no longer resist (or something like that).

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.


My dear Faith, we are commanded in scripture to "Honor thy father and thy mother." We are told to honor each other, holding each other as "more important than ourselves."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

Faith,

I appreciate your position. I had the same misgivings and still struggle with them. Like you my upbringing made me respect Trinity above all. Statues and icons made me feel a bit uncomfortable. I still give my wife a hard time about Mary. I ask her why we have 3 statues of Mary and only 2 Crucifixes.

You can be a devoted Catholic and never pray to Mary but I think you would be missing out. My prayers are overwhelmingly directed to God but for some matters I like to speak to Mary or my patron Pantaleon. They help me with complex and open ended requests when I cant formulate exactly what I need. I ask St Pantaleon to formulate my ideas on my career as a physician and hope that he can better ask God for what I truly need.

You see yourself as a staunch Defender of the Faith. Do not fear, Catholics are as devoted to God and Jesus as you are. Our love and reverence for those humans who have gone before in no way slights Our Father. We all can be Saints if we follow the lives of those who came before and in the end we hope to be neighbors of these Saints in the world to come.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 17, 2004.


I forgot to add that the Apostles didnt speak English. The Bible was written in the language of the time which was Hebrew.

Unfortunately all languages have their weaknesses in conveying thoughts as well as the spoken word. Hebrew has no superlative thus holiest is represented by repeating holy three times. Likewise brother and cousin are the same word. When we are 2000 years removed from the events of Christ's life and rely on a book in English without understanding the journey that Word has taken we can get into deep trouble.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 17, 2004.


Some more info:

The Apostles spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Although the languages are similar (as is Arabic, and Amharic) it was the Aramaean language and used as the common language of the region. It is also possible that Jesus spoke Greek since He talked with Pontius Pilot who probably didn't understand Aramaic.

The Old Testament was first written in Hebrew with a few chapters of the books of Ezra and Daniel recorded in Aramaic. Some of the books of the Hebrew Bible may have been written as far back as 1,400 BC although most of the text was probably written between 900 and 400 BC. The Hebrew 'canon' was established around 100 BC. This would be the Old Testament the Apostles would have used. As stated, it would have been in Hebrew.

The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek with some Aramaic. The New Testament was probably written in Greek because it was the most common language around the Mediterranean at the time.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.


Thanks for the info Bill. I am a neophyte in theology as well as Bible history. In RCIA Father K told me that the word cousin and brother were synonymous at the time of the Bible's writing. My wife whose father is Muslim lived with relatives where the brother/cousin relationship was jumbled. Arab families are evidently always extended and the distincion of brother and cousin blurs a bit. I am here to learn and stand corrected regarding the language it was translated into originally.

The Church as far as I know does not accept that Jesus had brothers though or that Mary had sexual relations after He was born.

What lead you away from the Church, Faith? I have a sister in law who has fallen away. Unfortunately, she has taken my brother and their 2 children with them. They will be raised as unbaptized atheists unless I can persuade them through my words and my prayers. When people fall away from the Catholic Church they really seem to fall hard.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 17, 2004.


The Church as far as I know does not accept that Jesus had brothers though or that Mary had sexual relations after He was born. Dave,

There is no indication that Jesus had any brothers. The Greek word (adelphos) used in the New Testament could mean brethren, brother, half-brother, cousin or some other close relation. There is also an ancient tradition (not a Church teaching) that Joseph was a widower with children of his own, so Jesus could have a half- brother. However, St. Jerome and several other early Fathers prefer the view that the "brothers" of Jesus are simply relatives such as cousins, which is more consistent with the New Testament than any case for siblings. He comes to this conclusion since it was common for Jews to refer to cousins as "brethren" at the time.

Scott Hahn, a former evangelical Presbyterian who is now a Roman Catholic professor of Theology and Scripture at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, says the greatest argument for Mary's perpetual virginity is in the Bible. At his crucifixion, Jesus sent Mary to live with John, saying "behold your mother." "Protestant and Catholic scholars agree that this would have been social nonsense," Hahn says. "It would have been illegal for Jesus to do this if he had younger brothers. They would naturally have taken Mary into their homes."

More on the perpetual virginity of Mary can be found here.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.


Bill...there is a Greek word for Cousin. And the New Testament used it. If Matthew meant cousins, why didn't he just say so?

Jerome tells us it is because he was quoting someone and it was the Jewish custom at the time to call cousins 'bretheren', so that is how it was translated into the Greek as 'bretheren'. Remember, he was trying to be as accurate as he could be when writing it all down.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.


I think Jerome is trying to say Matthew meant to write breatheren because that is the word that was used by those speaking. The Holy Spirit made sure to lead you to us so you would understand the meaning, so yes not only was the Holy Spirit working with Matthew, but also through Jerome then through us to you. This isn't necessarily only history.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.


Faith how can you believe that the pro-choice position is right with God? I have never understood how any Christian could.

The Catholic church is not for sissies thats for sure and that is why it seems to have some very angry fallen aways. The anger of these fallen aways tells me this is the Church for me. If I wanted to do whatever I felt like and not feel guilty the Unitarians would be a great choice. My own Episcopal church seems to feel that the Church needs to change with the times so it is also a good choice for people who think Hell is closed for repairs and that you can mock God with homosexual Bishops.

I see the sola scriptura crowd as those going to "the Dark Side". It is so seductive and easy just say I believe in Jesus and Shazaam you are "saved". Do what you want and in the end you get the greatest of rewards because God is all merciful. Im not sure the Canaanites, Sodomites, Egyptians, and many others would agree.

I understand people fault the Catholic Church with its array of sinners. Sure there are some awful sinners amongst the clergy. But as a non-catholic I am awed by the priests giving last rites to the dying at the world trade center, the lives and common martyrdom of the saints, the celibate priesthood, missionaries, brothers and sisters etc. I have seen movies about lives of various Catholic priests from ancient times to the present and all I can say is WOW. No protestant chuch faith has "put its money where its mouth is" like the Catholic church I plan on joining at the Easter vigil.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 17, 2004.


If you were a "secular girl" then you weren't "a Catholic" except in name, yet you write as though it was a Catholicism well lived and studied, practiced and loved that led you to secularism!

Not so. Unfortunately in many parishes and dioceses the faith - the deposit of faith we received from the apostles and handed on as a treasure to guard and share, has been buried by omission or heresy on the part of bad or poorly formed shepherds: bad bishops or priests or nuns....

So I don't blame alot of nominal Catholics who - in a state of spiritual desolation and starvation, go over to a local and thriving protestant congregation where people at least believe and act like it.

But it is a loss and defeat. You give up 7 sacraments for 2. You cut yourself off of the great treasure for just a small fraction of it.

I say, once you have recovered a sense of prayer and newfound relationship with Jesus - which you should have had all along in the Church, perhaps you'll come back. And perhaps by that time those of us in the trenches, fighting false brothers from within and without will have repaired the Church enough to help you in again.

In the meanwhile, pray for us and learn to see what is happening...it's a real war going on between those who should know better (think Saruman) and those who know better but haven't much power to do much (think hobbits).

In Mark's Gospel the signs of a Christian are that they can handle snakes and drink poisons and not die. The ancient Church fathers interpreted this to mean (besides the literal) that good Christians could be scandalized by bad shepherds and not loose heart or faith.

I am not one to let a stupid bishop or priest or clue-less DRE and feckless parish community ruin my faith or drive me away from Christ's bride, the Church. I will witness to the truth in season and out, take up the cross of evangelizing those who should evangelize! And go to those most lost and in need of light: the one's who claim to see yet are blind!

When a parish is moribund and has no vibrant youth group, no vibrant adults group, no community out-reach and no counter-cultural witness, that is the signal that all true and faithful Catholics must seize the opportunity and step up to volunteer time and treasure to re- evangelize their parish. It takes much prayer, sacrifice, and pain. It requires great humility and tact and zeal. One must learn to swallow anger and pride and work through less than ideal co- workers...but isn't that what Christ had to do with the apostles and with us?

There is much glory down in the trench, doing the hard work. But pray for us Catholics whose cross it is to have things hard not easy.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.


Sex is a funny thing. So powerful and yet so insignificant when you really think about it.

I remember long, long ago in a place far, far away (I grew up in Latin America, going to Catholic schools). The priest in charge of the school told me something that always followed me, and that was over 25 years ago. I asked, "How can we trust the Bible? God did not write it--men did."

He answered, "You do not need to trust in the Bible. You need to trust in God. And knowing that God inspired those who wrote the Bible, have faith that the meaning of God's will has been passed on."

The Bible is not infallible. Taking short sentences out of a whole context is perilously close to falsity. Any single sentence could have been corrupted or misinterpreted. Only the whole meaning should be considered as God's truth. Also, beware translations. What you read in English is not always the same that you read in Spanish, and most probably NOT in the original languages, dialects and local historical contexts of the various scriptures when they were written.

Those things that are actually God's words (such as the Ten Commandments) are likely truly absolute guidelines we must follow. The rest of the Bible was meant as a sort of History book that we can use as a guide to lead a life that is not contrary to God's (I won't say Will) preferences.

Does anyone else find it particular how God's fundamental character evolved over the period of the Bible? To suggest that this change has ceased over the last two thousand years or so is ridiculous. Most of us Christians (all of us, Prots and Cats) tend to forget about Him and worship Jesus--Which Jesus asked us not to do. We are supposed to worship God, and always remember Jesus as the selfless, all-loving Son of God, whose unbelievale acts of love allows us to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

I am sure God understands our modern Society. How could he not? "God opens the Womb and God closes the Womb". Of course he does, you silly people. Why do you think Condoms break, Pills fail (or are missed), vasectomies subject to freak failures, etc. Nothing we mere humans can do can stand against God's true Will. To actually think so is Anathema, is it not? So come on! Get off the contraceptive kick! If God Wills it, you'll swell--never doubt it. That's faith.

As far as out-of-wedlock sex, I thought Adultery was when married people sought sex outside the marriage. The Ten commandments say "Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife." It says nothing about his sister or daughter. To try to stretch the meaning of God's word to suit your own intentions is also Anathema.

I'm sorry. I'm rambling.

Just remember that God created ALL in six time periods. We don't have a lot of details on How. But if God created us in His likeness, do you think he created a flawed image? Is God capable of such a mistake? And if He did not create a flawed likeness, does that not make us like Him? (and before you all go screaming "BLASPHEMY", just consider--if any of us really can--His reasons for creating us. Maybe we are supposed to be doing things like "playing God". Perhaps one day, when we are ready by following His guidance as provided by the Bible, and have taken Dominion over this Creation as He commanded in the Bible, He may find us Worthy enough in Spirit and Substance to send His Son Jesus back to lead us to Him.)

Sorry. Rambling again.

-- Stu (stuartborden@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


STU:
''Sex is a funny thing. So powerful and yet so insignificant when you really think about it.''

Don't tell us you're a thinker. I'll tell you frankly what's insignificant, too. Not sex or the Word of God; your rambling. I suppose you're only amusing yourself here, doing this stand-up routine. But we take faith seriously here. You aren't serious, and you aren't very relevant where faith is concerned. Go ahead, make noises like a sophisticated man of the world. You can only impress yourself, and other hedonists who lurk by.

Just for a capsule reply, (unlike your long-winded bombast); everything you've written is phony baloney.

CIAO! ..................................................................... ..

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.


Does anyone else find it particular how God's fundamental character evolved over the period of the Bible?

God has not changed. Mankind may or may not have changed what we know of God and natural law, but both God and natural law have been consistant throughout history.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


Faith: When you say, ''out-of-marriage sex leads to out of wed-lock children.'' When a man has children with more than one woman--he adulterates his blood-line. I think that that is why God wanted marriage to remain pure.''

A ''bloodline'' isn't ever mentioned in the Bible, for moral purposes is it? Why would you depart from a biblical concept to a genealogical one?

Jesus Christ has a harlot far up in His family tree.

And if a man is widowed and re-marries, why isn't his bloodline ruined?

''Out-of-marriage sex leads to out of wed-lock children'' may be tragic, but the bloodline doesn't become inferior. We know what makes extra-marital sex a sin. It is because God forbids it, with or without children.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.


--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

everyone has committed adultery..

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 22, 2004.

you don't have to do anything physical to commit adultery, you just have to think it. and no one can honestly they haven't had any impure thoughts.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 22, 2004.

“Stu.. Adultery is when something becomes "adulterated"., which means made impure. I think that out-of-marriage sex leads to out of wed-lock children. When a man has children with more than one woman--he adulterates his blood-line. I think that that is why God wanted marriage to remain pure.”

Faith,

All children are a gift from God, therefore they‘re not impure. The children themselves are as precious to God as any other child, their parentage is beyond their control. Adultery is the act of conjugal infidelity. That’s where the impurity lies, not with the consequences of the adultery.

If what you’re suggesting is true, then that would imply that it’s OK to commit adultery as long as there are no children from the union.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 24, 2004.


It's important, but has no bearing on salvation at all. You can be the brother or son of a king and be sent to hell.

Jesus was not in need of a genealogical in Christian eyes. Maybe in Hebrew eyes, but not us. The angel Gariel simply states that He is to have the throne of DAVID HIS FATHER.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.


Do TELL. Is there something wrong with the Ten Commandments? Christ needed no genealogical records; even though we see some. God revealed His descent to us. The angel Gabriel told us He is the Son of David. Look in Luke, 1 /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

We know what it is. You were talking about bloodline and unrelated things. With no authority once again, I mot add.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

I know this: You're out of your mind.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

Faith said: "We can certainly do well to follow the Ten Commandments in good and right living, but the Commandments were meant for the Jews--we are not under the Law, per sey"

Once again she contradicts Christ himself!

Jesus told us that he did NOT come to abolish the law and also saidthe following about the Commandments:

"If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Jesus is categorically telling us that the commandments are not only for the Jews, that all of us are to follow them.

faith's sadly mistaken in her private interpretation yet again.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 25, 2004.


"Only Jesus is perfect"

The Blessed Virgin Mary is a perfect human being, too ... she is the Ark of the Covenant ... blameless, spotless, sinless.

-- (Baptized@nd.Confirmed), January 25, 2004.


''Sara...Jesus fulfilled the law by being the perfection it requires us to be but that we can't be.

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, Faith. The world was in sin, and Jesus came to save sinners who had been under the Law. Are you worried about the Law? We simply keep the commandments as He warned us to. He gave us the Church as our Teacher and Mother, the sole authority in the world. In and through His Church He sanctifies the faithful; there is no other sanctifying power in our lifetime.

You may think you believe in Jesus, but HOW? You dismiss His commandments as unnecessary, His Church as unverifiable in this world. You deny His words when you act as if you understand scripture. Therefore, in this life you will never be sanctified. You don't know what sanctity is. Catholics know.

Following Jesus Christ and His apostles is sanctity. We are called to become saints in this world --the kingdom of God starts with the Church! We aren't earning our way to heaven. We ARE in heaven, during this life, when we carry our cross to perfection. Jesus is in us. We partake of Him and heaven and we are sanctified for the end of the journey.

The entrance into His glory will be our fulfillment forever. He'll have brought us to perfection by grace. A Bride without stain or blemish or wrinkle; His Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2004.


"If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" (From Sarah's post above)

Faith, I guess you'll have to dump these in the "I-don't-know-how-to- fit-these-into-my-theology-pile."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2004.


Faith, there are requirements or conditions of salvation. It is not as easy as responding to an altar call, though that is a very good first step.

Matthew 10:22 says "you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved."

1 Corin 15:1-2 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, IF YOU HOLD FAST THE WORD WHICH I PREACHED TO YOU, UNLESS YOU BELIEVED IN VAIN.

2 Peter 1:10-11 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you, for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

Then of course, there are the scriptures concerning the branches that are cast into the fire and burned because they did not bear fruit; they did not "abide" in the tree. Christ spews the lukewarm out of his mouth, etc., etc.

Faith, your "easy-believism" doctrine does not take into account all of scripture, but only a select few scriptures.

Gail

P.S. Of course Christ is my Savior! The Church teaches the atoning sacrifice of Christ, Faith -- The blood of the lamb poured out for our sins. My goodness! Don't you think we know this already?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2004.


Matthew 10:22 says "you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved."

The one who does NOT ENDURE to the end will not be saved, according to this passage.

1 Corin 15:1-2 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, IF YOU HOLD FAST THE WORD WHICH I PREACHED TO YOU, UNLESS YOU BELIEVED IN VAIN.

Again, you will be saved, IF YOU HOLD FAST the word.

2 Peter 1:10-11 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you, for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

The entrance into the eternal kingdom of the Lord will be abundantly supplied to you IF you are diligent, making certain of His calling, "practicing these things."

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." Salvation is not a thing to be taken for granted, but it is a thing in which our participation is a REQUIREMENT.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ