"Christ was a simple man, a humble man...who taught the word of God...but wasnt [sic]part of a religion, or church...with traditions, and rituals."
Here's the thing... Christ is GOD. There is nothing all that simple about the creator of the universe. The depth of God is so vast, that humanity will never fully comprehend it, no matter how much education or intelligence we have. We cannot, therefore, put Christ into a category of simple. In addition, some of his teachings are difficult to understand. This is evident by the multitude of Christian denominations that all claim to know and teach truth, using the same Scriptures and claiming they are ALL inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet not agreeing with one another on many, if not all, doctrinal issues.
A read of the Old Testament also reveals that God instituted many rituals with the Israelites. There are purposes and reasons for these rituals. Now, since we know that the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament, we can also know that these rituals would likely have had a significant carry-over into the new. A study of early Christian writings would prove this, by the way. (It is not the ritual itself that one should take issue with... Rather, what is in the heart of those participating? Are they doing it in vain or to honor God and build on their relationship with him?)
Hmm... Christ wasn't part of a church?? Really? Scripture explicitly tells us that Christ actually ESTABLISHED an authoritative church. Here are some passages that might cause you to reconsider this assertion:
Mt 16:18-19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
WOW... A church with the authority to bind and loose... by which the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it. Doesn't leave much room for the Catholic Church to slip off into apostasy within the first few centuries, does it?
Mt 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
If we are to take our issues to "the church" and be considered a heathen if we don't yield to that church, that is supposing that the church has quite a bit of authority to decide such things. It also shows that people must know where this "church" is. The church must be visible.
Col 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
If Christ is going to be the head of the church, don't you think he is, therefore, a PART of that church?
1 Tim 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The CHURCH is the pillar and ground of the truth! Clearly we see that Christ not only is a part of a Church as it's head, but he is also the one who established it!
Why is it that "religion" has some sort of negative connotation among non-Catholic Christians? Religion is a set of practices centered around God that brings one into communion with God through the reading of Scripture and prayer. This is EXACTLY what Christ established... a religion. There is a difference between practicing religion in VAIN and practicing religion in a way that honors God. Now, if you want to say that God did not establish empty and meaningless religion, I would completely agree with you. But take a look at James 1:26-27, which says, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
These "Whore of Babylon" attacks that make the Holy Catholic Church out to be the work of Satan himself come as no surprise. After all, Matthew 10:25 states, "It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?" And John 15:18-20 states, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."
No other church on the planet gets accused of being the Whore - just the Catholic Church. It's an easy attack... We are the largest Christian body (more than all other denominations combined), so we must have some significant role in God's plan. I suppose if we can't be the Bride in someone's eyes, it's easy to make us into the Whore. Millions of us have followed this "Whore" for 2000 years and out of the Whore have come some of the world's greatest scholars, artists, scientists and musicians. Interesting to think that such extraordinary people could come out such an evil false religion...
As for Ash Wednesday... Catholics and some Protestant denominations practice this because it is a sign of repentance. The use of ashes along with fasting as a sign of repentance is used frequently in the Old Testament (See Jer 6:26, Is 58:5, Dn 9:3 and Jonah 3:6) Jesus also refers to ashes as a sign of repentance (Mt 11:21; Lk 10:13). Since the beginning of the church, ashes have been used in different ways to signify repentance. Today, they remind us of who we are... mortal sinners in need of God's free gift of salvation... "Remember that you are dust and to dust you will return." It reminds us that we are members of the Body of Christ called to daily pick up our crosses and follow Christ in humility and with a repentant heart.
Simple, have you ever considered examining Catholicism from it's source rather than buying into misconceptions and straw man arguments that even Protestant scholars find ridiculous? This whole concept is so new in light of 2000 years of Christianity and is a vitriolic attack that is completely unfounded. It bears false witness against the Catholic Church as it does not accurately portray her teachings. I would hope that you would not want to be a part of such a lack of charity.
I'm sure that your attempt to save Catholics is sincere, as I was once fairly anti-Catholic myself so I know where you're coming from... but you are also sincerely wrong. I urge you to read some of my apologetic posts. I also encourage you to read something written by Pope John Paul II. See if what he's saying truly sounds evil to you - make up your OWN mind about the Catholic Church. The way I see it is if you're going to try to save Catholics, you should know them from the inside, instead of buying into the already refuted misconceptions that have been barfed out through people like Jack Chick, Dave Hunt and Lorraine Boettner.
**All verses quoted in the last two posts are taken from the King James Version**
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A "Simple" Response - Part 1
The following was a comment left to me by "Simple":
So I have a seriouse question for you, and others....Wolves in Sheeps clothing huh?. In the book of revelation they talk of scarlet and purple...isnt most of the etire for the pope, and the vatican...scarlet and purple. Revelation speaks, of pearls...and gold...Isnt the entire roman holy empire...FULL of pearls...and Gold?...please I want you to look something up...I pray and I only want to save lives...log onto Youtube...and look up "bibleortradition"...and then search for revelation 17...theres part 1 and part 2. I seen them and was amazed. Also look into Ash Wensday. Word must be spread. If you dont have it...download it. For your search for God...Download it. Christ was a simple man, a humble man...who taught the word of God...but wasnt part of a religion, or church...with traditions, and rituals...Would he have loved the wealth that is kept, and wasted? Love is all that matters...please, look this up. If you do post a blog. ill read it, then give you my email. I have a purpose.
With all due respect, the videos you mention are so ridiculous and anti-Catholic, they made me want to vomit. It is clear that those who put these videos together know nothing about actual Catholic teaching and they are ignorant to Scripture and how it's been historically understood. Additionally, some of their assumptions are completely laughable... I had to just shake my head in amazement that people actually buy into this crap! It seems to be merely a regurgitation of Dave Hunt's garbage.
But, this is not to say that I can't provide an intelligent response to the accusations made. The real question is, will it even matter to Simple if I do? If I can show that what was presented is nonsense, will Simple stop being an anti-Catholic on a mission to save us from the "Whore of Babylon" or will Simple continue in blindness to save that which is not lost?
Just to be clear, the passage in question is Revelation 17:1-6, which states:
"1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."
Of course, like many of us have heard like a broken record, in the video, the "Roman Catholic Church" is accused of being the Whore referenced here.
For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to address all the points made in the video, but will address the ones brought up by Simple in his/her comment.
Clothed in "purple and red": For one thing, these colors are worn to convey a particular meaning: purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. One must wonder why, according to the anti-Catholic view presented, these colors are literally applied to clergy vestments (which even high Protestants wear, don't they?) while the woman symbolizes a city. Huh? Second, WHITE is actually the dominant color of the Church, used with other colors and second to white would be likely be green (since that is what is worn the majority of the year). But, regardless, one forgets that God also COMMANDED that these colors be used for priests' vestments (Ex 39:1-2): And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the LORD commanded Moses. And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. (See also Exodus 28:4-8, 15, 33; 39:1-8, 29)
If this was commanded and pleasing to God then, I see no reason why he would not be pleased with this today. Logically then, the mere wearing of garments in such colors is not "evil" nor does it mean that the Catholic Church is partaking in something that cannot please God. To take the passage in Revelation 17 and apply it to the Catholic Church at the ignorance of other passages which more accurately portray what we're doing is simply not logical.
Pearls and gold: The problem with this argument is that the Vatican, regardless of how "wealthy" it may have been in the past, operates as an independent country... typically in a deficit with a budget the size of the archdiocese of Chicago. And, just to make you aware as well, the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Her money comes from the faithful in their tithes and offerings and she is a steward, not an owner, of that wealth. Plus, to say such a thing is a bit hypocritical when looking at the wealth of Protestant leaders like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. What do they do with their wealth?
So, what exactly is the point in raising this argument?
Part 2 coming soon!
So I have a seriouse question for you, and others....Wolves in Sheeps clothing huh?. In the book of revelation they talk of scarlet and purple...isnt most of the etire for the pope, and the vatican...scarlet and purple. Revelation speaks, of pearls...and gold...Isnt the entire roman holy empire...FULL of pearls...and Gold?...please I want you to look something up...I pray and I only want to save lives...log onto Youtube...and look up "bibleortradition"...and then search for revelation 17...theres part 1 and part 2. I seen them and was amazed. Also look into Ash Wensday. Word must be spread. If you dont have it...download it. For your search for God...Download it. Christ was a simple man, a humble man...who taught the word of God...but wasnt part of a religion, or church...with traditions, and rituals...Would he have loved the wealth that is kept, and wasted? Love is all that matters...please, look this up. If you do post a blog. ill read it, then give you my email. I have a purpose.
With all due respect, the videos you mention are so ridiculous and anti-Catholic, they made me want to vomit. It is clear that those who put these videos together know nothing about actual Catholic teaching and they are ignorant to Scripture and how it's been historically understood. Additionally, some of their assumptions are completely laughable... I had to just shake my head in amazement that people actually buy into this crap! It seems to be merely a regurgitation of Dave Hunt's garbage.
But, this is not to say that I can't provide an intelligent response to the accusations made. The real question is, will it even matter to Simple if I do? If I can show that what was presented is nonsense, will Simple stop being an anti-Catholic on a mission to save us from the "Whore of Babylon" or will Simple continue in blindness to save that which is not lost?
Just to be clear, the passage in question is Revelation 17:1-6, which states:
"1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."
Of course, like many of us have heard like a broken record, in the video, the "Roman Catholic Church" is accused of being the Whore referenced here.
For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to address all the points made in the video, but will address the ones brought up by Simple in his/her comment.
Clothed in "purple and red": For one thing, these colors are worn to convey a particular meaning: purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. One must wonder why, according to the anti-Catholic view presented, these colors are literally applied to clergy vestments (which even high Protestants wear, don't they?) while the woman symbolizes a city. Huh? Second, WHITE is actually the dominant color of the Church, used with other colors and second to white would be likely be green (since that is what is worn the majority of the year). But, regardless, one forgets that God also COMMANDED that these colors be used for priests' vestments (Ex 39:1-2): And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the LORD commanded Moses. And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. (See also Exodus 28:4-8, 15, 33; 39:1-8, 29)
If this was commanded and pleasing to God then, I see no reason why he would not be pleased with this today. Logically then, the mere wearing of garments in such colors is not "evil" nor does it mean that the Catholic Church is partaking in something that cannot please God. To take the passage in Revelation 17 and apply it to the Catholic Church at the ignorance of other passages which more accurately portray what we're doing is simply not logical.
Pearls and gold: The problem with this argument is that the Vatican, regardless of how "wealthy" it may have been in the past, operates as an independent country... typically in a deficit with a budget the size of the archdiocese of Chicago. And, just to make you aware as well, the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Her money comes from the faithful in their tithes and offerings and she is a steward, not an owner, of that wealth. Plus, to say such a thing is a bit hypocritical when looking at the wealth of Protestant leaders like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. What do they do with their wealth?
So, what exactly is the point in raising this argument?
Part 2 coming soon!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
A Journey to Grace
Check out this new blog:
A Journey to Grace Blog is an outreach of Sisters In Christ Inc., a ministry founded in 2004 for the purpose of leading post abortive and sexually abused women to freedom, hope and healing in Jesus Christ.
A Journey to Grace Blog is an outreach of Sisters In Christ Inc., a ministry founded in 2004 for the purpose of leading post abortive and sexually abused women to freedom, hope and healing in Jesus Christ.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Insert Ring on Finger
Ok, so this is NOT a typical video posting you'd see on this blog. But I wanted to share it anyway... because I found it humorous and well-done.
Insert Ring on Finger from Radthanael on Vimeo.
Insert Ring on Finger from Radthanael on Vimeo.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Sirach 4:28
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you."
I love this verse.
So often it is difficult to stand up for the truth, especially when society has become so relativistic. But God calls us to fight to the death for the truth if necessary. In doing so, we know that God will join us in the fight and that, in the end, the truth will always win.
It is the search for truth that brought me to the Catholic faith and I've had to work hard to defend my decision to follow God into what many call a "dried-up, man-made, religion of rules". How so very wrong they are... as it is none of these things! In fact, the Catholic faith challenges me to grow in Christ, to study more, pray more and love more.
I love my faith and want to grow in the desire to fight for the truth, whatever the cost!
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Catholic Vote 2008
Stand up for life. Humanitarian efforts, health care reform, improved economics, the end of the war... it's all good and necessary... but none of it means anything if we cannot stand up for the right to life, liberty and happiness on behalf of the thousands of Americans who are slaughtered every day in the silent terrorism of abortion.
All rights depend first on having LIFE. Liberty and patriotism mean nothing if you're dead.
"Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates, a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic's vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate simply with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter knowingly and freely assents to his or her status as such an accomplice, then the voter sins mortally."
Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in a document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia" (WRHC 3).
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Danger of Relativism
When one is not grounded in truth (and isn't even seeking it anyway), it is easy for them to be persuaded to believe in anything... One does not need to be held accountable for anything, at least in their mind, if they simply deny the divinity of Christ and the authority of God. It's easy to escape by simply throwing out the "organized religion" card.
This disease of relativism is seen often, even in Christian circles. One excuses their sinful behavior, instead of taking ownership of it, by making statements like, "God and I have an understanding... " or "I don't really think that is what the Bible says... " Absurd.
Truth is truth... and if you're not grounded in it, you will be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." (Eph 4:14)
This disease of relativism is seen often, even in Christian circles. One excuses their sinful behavior, instead of taking ownership of it, by making statements like, "God and I have an understanding... " or "I don't really think that is what the Bible says... " Absurd.
Truth is truth... and if you're not grounded in it, you will be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." (Eph 4:14)
Monday, July 07, 2008
Neglected
As anyone can see, this blog has seriously been neglected. It bothers
me that I haven't written in so long but I've just been so busy with
living life and getting through one day at a time with work, kids,
school and financial adjustments. Sometimes I think, "If I could just
reach that milestone, then I will have more time to write... Including
my conversion story." But, it seems that milestone never gets reached
and the story never gets written.
Clay had his First Communion on June 1. I was so proud of him and so
excited to see one of my children receive the Eucharist. My whole
family attended... The first Mass for my parents. I can't help but
pray that I will one day be sitting regularly in church with my
parents. Apparently, there is a long history of Catholicism on my
mom's side of the family that was only broken in recent generations.
May God restore us all to the fullness of truth!
I hope to write more soon...
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
One Year
I can officially say that I've ben Catholic one year, as of yesterday! Woot woot!
It's been quite a year, too! My children were baptized last summer. Clay is preparing for First Reconciliatin and First Holy Communion (May 31) and we are striving to make Catholic living a part of our everyday lives.
I wish I could impart some words of wisdom but my mind is full of useless information I need for a test tomorrow and I just can't seem to focus!
Will my life ever slow down enough to breathe?
It's been quite a year, too! My children were baptized last summer. Clay is preparing for First Reconciliatin and First Holy Communion (May 31) and we are striving to make Catholic living a part of our everyday lives.
I wish I could impart some words of wisdom but my mind is full of useless information I need for a test tomorrow and I just can't seem to focus!
Will my life ever slow down enough to breathe?
Friday, March 28, 2008
God's Love
In case you're wondering how much God loves you:
I could barely make it through this video. Get your tissue.
(Scenes from the short film "Most")
I could barely make it through this video. Get your tissue.
(Scenes from the short film "Most")
Monday, March 17, 2008
Adoption Update
The meeting with the expectant mother went great and she has chosen to place her twin boys with my sister and her husband! Our family is so excited! The cost of the adoption is just about what they have saved up and some family members have promised to provide any amount they may be short! God has truly made a way for this all to happen. We all feel such a peace about everything!
In less than two months, I'll have two brand new nephews! The first one born will be called Jaden, which means "God has heard". The second will be called Joseph, which means "may God add/increase". Both names are perfectly fitting!
I want to give a very sincere THANK YOU to everyone for their prayers and for those who donated even the smallest of amounts! It is because of this that God has heard our prayers and brought this dream into a reality!
In less than two months, I'll have two brand new nephews! The first one born will be called Jaden, which means "God has heard". The second will be called Joseph, which means "may God add/increase". Both names are perfectly fitting!
I want to give a very sincere THANK YOU to everyone for their prayers and for those who donated even the smallest of amounts! It is because of this that God has heard our prayers and brought this dream into a reality!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Egg Yolks and Babies
My sister, April, got a call from the case working handling their adoption yesterday. There is a an expectant mother due in July who is looking to place her babies in a loving home. April and her husband are going to meet her on Saturday! That's right, BABIES... She's having TWIN boys!
There IS something significant about the concept of adopting twins:
One morning a couple of years ago, after April and her husband found out that it was indeed impossible to conceive, she was praying about adoption... a serious long talk with God in the morning. She went out to the kitchen to make some breakfast, pulled out the eggs and cracked one into the pan. Out came twin yolks. Interesting but nothing to write home about until the SECOND egg cracked into the pan was ALSO was a twin yolk. Since that time, my family has thought of these TWO twin eggs as a sign that God is in control... and that, one day, their dream to adopt would be realized (though we didn't exactly expect TWINS!) We have always linked those eggs to my sister's morning prayer about adoption. There have been a couple of occasions when I have also cracked open twin eggs, thinking instantly of my sister and her adoption prayer.
So, when this expectant mother came up with twins, we all thought of this twin egg occurrence... Could this be it? Is this God's way of giving us peace about this particular possibility?
Please keep my family in your prayers. Please pray that everything will go as God wills it. Pray that these babies are the answer to prayer we've been waiting for and that my sister and her husband can finally be the parents they've always wanted to be!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Grammar Rant
Please pardon my horrible grammar in my newsletter...I should have read it before I sent it out! I have no idea what I was thinking but I had a good laugh about it!
Two fragmented sentences and I used "conscience" instead of "conscious"... all within the first line! SHEESH!
Ok, that's my rant.
Two fragmented sentences and I used "conscience" instead of "conscious"... all within the first line! SHEESH!
Ok, that's my rant.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Catholics Come Home
Used to be Catholic? Why should you return?
Not Catholic but have questions about what Catholics believe?
Catholic and want to help others come home?
Go to CatholicsComeHome.org
This site is awesome!
Not Catholic but have questions about what Catholics believe?
Catholic and want to help others come home?
Go to CatholicsComeHome.org
This site is awesome!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Did Jesus Have Brothers?
It’s common for non-Catholics to insist that what Catholics believe contradicts Scripture. While some of what the Catholic Church teaches may be not be EXPLICITLY found in Scripture, this does not mean that it “contradicts”.
First off, we should define “contradict”.
Contradict = to assert the contrary or opposite of
So, just because something is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture doesn't mean it is contradicting it.
I've been asked to address several different issues, one being whether Mary had other children (which would disprove the Church's teach on Mary's perpetual virginity). So, here goes...
The following verse is often used to "prove" that Mary had other children:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Notice one thing… Mark 6:3 says THE son of Mary, not “a” son… more on this verse below. Look at the following passages in Genesis:
Gen 14:14
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen 11:27
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
In Gen 14:14, it says “brother” (some translations render this as kinsman). But in Gen 11:27, we already read that Lot was Abrams nephew. This is because there was no Hebrew word for nephew. Just like there wasn’t one for cousin, uncle, niece, aunt, etc. They had to use the word “brother”.
Check out the following verses:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
According to Mark 6:3, didn't it say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus and was also the mother of James and Joses? But Matthew 27 says that a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses. Well, we know that this Mary (mother of James and Joses) was NOT the mother of Jesus because it says she was looking on from afar and Jesus’ mother was standing at the foot of the cross.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mark15:47
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Don’t you think Scripture would have said the mother of Jesus if they were referring to the same Mary?
Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. So, what is going on? One idea that is plausible is that James and Joses are Jesus’ cousins (or other kinsmen) but they are called “brothers” because the Jews didn’t have a separate word for close relatives. So, Scripture does NOT clearly or explicitly state that Mary had other children.
How about this passage:
Acts 1:14-15
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
There were 120 people? Think about it... there were 11 apostles (at that time), Jesus’ mother (that makes 12 people), plus the women (approximately 3 but let’s even say a dozen or more just to be fair). That would mean Jesus had about 80 or 90 brothers! Clearly the use of the word "brothers" does not necessarily mean they were all brothers as we understand the term today.
Also, if Mary had any other sons, wouldn't Jesus have given his mother over to them to care for? In that day, it would have been highly offensive for Jesus to ask anyone other than his own brothers to look after their mother, yet this is what he did in his final moments...
John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
So, we can show that Scripture does not contradict the concept that Mary could have been a perpetual virgin… and it is, therefore, fair and logical to believe such a teaching.
On a side note about this topic... It’s logical to believe that anyone who carried Christ, the Son of God and Holiest of Holy, in her womb would not later defile that womb by conceiving a sinful person. It was common in that day to be consecrated as a virgin and take on a spouse, who’s purpose was to protect that vow. This is said about Mary in other ancient texts, which may also aid us in knowing the surrounding context of Scripture. But there is nothing in Scripture that states that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, so this Catholic teaching does not contradict Scripture, as some like to claim.
First off, we should define “contradict”.
Contradict = to assert the contrary or opposite of
So, just because something is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture doesn't mean it is contradicting it.
I've been asked to address several different issues, one being whether Mary had other children (which would disprove the Church's teach on Mary's perpetual virginity). So, here goes...
The following verse is often used to "prove" that Mary had other children:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Notice one thing… Mark 6:3 says THE son of Mary, not “a” son… more on this verse below. Look at the following passages in Genesis:
Gen 14:14
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen 11:27
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
In Gen 14:14, it says “brother” (some translations render this as kinsman). But in Gen 11:27, we already read that Lot was Abrams nephew. This is because there was no Hebrew word for nephew. Just like there wasn’t one for cousin, uncle, niece, aunt, etc. They had to use the word “brother”.
Check out the following verses:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
According to Mark 6:3, didn't it say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus and was also the mother of James and Joses? But Matthew 27 says that a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses. Well, we know that this Mary (mother of James and Joses) was NOT the mother of Jesus because it says she was looking on from afar and Jesus’ mother was standing at the foot of the cross.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mark15:47
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Don’t you think Scripture would have said the mother of Jesus if they were referring to the same Mary?
Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. So, what is going on? One idea that is plausible is that James and Joses are Jesus’ cousins (or other kinsmen) but they are called “brothers” because the Jews didn’t have a separate word for close relatives. So, Scripture does NOT clearly or explicitly state that Mary had other children.
How about this passage:
Acts 1:14-15
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
There were 120 people? Think about it... there were 11 apostles (at that time), Jesus’ mother (that makes 12 people), plus the women (approximately 3 but let’s even say a dozen or more just to be fair). That would mean Jesus had about 80 or 90 brothers! Clearly the use of the word "brothers" does not necessarily mean they were all brothers as we understand the term today.
Also, if Mary had any other sons, wouldn't Jesus have given his mother over to them to care for? In that day, it would have been highly offensive for Jesus to ask anyone other than his own brothers to look after their mother, yet this is what he did in his final moments...
John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
So, we can show that Scripture does not contradict the concept that Mary could have been a perpetual virgin… and it is, therefore, fair and logical to believe such a teaching.
On a side note about this topic... It’s logical to believe that anyone who carried Christ, the Son of God and Holiest of Holy, in her womb would not later defile that womb by conceiving a sinful person. It was common in that day to be consecrated as a virgin and take on a spouse, who’s purpose was to protect that vow. This is said about Mary in other ancient texts, which may also aid us in knowing the surrounding context of Scripture. But there is nothing in Scripture that states that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, so this Catholic teaching does not contradict Scripture, as some like to claim.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Update
Sorry I've been out for so long. I've got a full plate right now with full-time work, 3 college courses and the everyday job of being a mom, too! I haven't had much time for blogging and I've found myself on non-Catholic blogs lately, trying to share the truth of the Catholic faith.
I have, however, started a forum, where we can discuss various aspects of our Catholic faith. Non-Catholics are also welcome!
Check it out, join us, and post something for discussion!
http://thiscatholicjourney.heavenforum.com
I DO have a post rumbling in my head... I hope to find the time to get it up in the next couple of days, provided I can survive all the homework I have!
Blessings to all!
I have, however, started a forum, where we can discuss various aspects of our Catholic faith. Non-Catholics are also welcome!
Check it out, join us, and post something for discussion!
http://thiscatholicjourney.heavenforum.com
I DO have a post rumbling in my head... I hope to find the time to get it up in the next couple of days, provided I can survive all the homework I have!
Blessings to all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)