Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does the Catholic Church teach from the Bible?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 

I think there are saints, who are contained in the happy and eternally blissful space generated by Jesus Christ (in his father's house), although Jesus did say that God was the God of the living for each generation, in which case we're all still here, except maybe the one who no longer incarnates in order to intercede for us at his father's side. I do know that Jesus intended for heaven to also be a now thing and to manifest on earth through living saints, something that the RCC doesn't go along with, making a very strong line of differentiation between the earthly and heavenly realm. Sometimes I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church might have got everything upside down and backwards, to deposit all their saints accidentially, or intentionally (God forbid), in a spiritual dungeon. If so, it would be nice to see them all finally go marching in, so to speak (into heaven of course), but would they include Marilyn Monroe, JFK, and Elvis Presley ("thank you, thank you very much")...



If they go marching in, where were they coming from..?

"Every sinner has a future and every saint, a past."
~ Oscar Wilde


May God bless us all, in all earnestness I pray (all kidding aside).

edit on 23-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edited




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   


Those who are dead, their bodies will be reformed as spiritual bodies. Those who are alive, their bodies will be changed to spiritual bodies. There will be no bodies left in the grave.
reply to post by truejew
 


truejew

I finally see exactly what you are saying now. Sorry I was so dense and not understanding what your theology actually was.

You have a point to consider but my understanding is that you are misled in believing that there will be a collective resurrection of all of the human race at one final judgment. The Samaritan woman at the well talking to Jesus had the same idea that you have. You are correct to assume that there will be a last day judgment but that judgment comes after the 1,000 years reign of Christ and is at the end of all humanity.

The key to resurrection comes in Luke's account of the rich man and Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham. You can read this account in Luke 16:19-31. If you want to believe that this is nothing but a parable then so be it but if you want to believe that this is a true account then you have to treat this as a true happening. Parables are stories of events that can pertain to cultures of all sorts and conditions of all sorts and are teaching tools for all generations of assorted conditions and time. Here in this account the man Lazarus and Abraham are actually named as known people who have existed as well as definite places called Abraham's Bosom and Hell. So in the opinions of literature, this is an account of an actual happening. Why would this be told by Luke in this manner if it were not a true account?

Why does Christ Jesus teach numerous times about hell if it is not used. Why does John cite that hell will be cast into the lake of fire if no one is in hell to be cast into the lake of fire? To understand hell you must understand the Judaic theology.

The Hebrews (at one time) believed that the Hebrew people would, upon death, collectively enter a containment in the center of the earth called Sheol. All of the nation of Hebrews would eventually enter this place called Sheol. Then came the idea that if the bad people were punished here on earth they would also be punished in Sheol. Now this came about gradually and not overnight. As this idea became foremost in their theology they then accepted this as a fact. Then Sheol was divided into several camps called Abraham's Bosom in respect to father Abraham and hell.

As Jesus came upon the scene, He verified that indeed there was a place called Sheol and there were separate containment's for the good and bad souls. This was taught to Jesus' Apostles and Luke gave us this account that confirms this to be a fact. In fact Jesus taught a great deal upon hell and the ones that were cast into this place in the center of the earth. At this time (Jesus was still alive) no one had ever entered the celestial realm of the kingdom of heaven. In fact the kingdom of heaven was not given to us till after the death of Christ Jesus.

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

As Jesus was put to death, and yes He was every bit human as you and I are today, He said to the thief on the cross next to Him - Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Note the word "Paradise" - The word Paradise, in the new testament, means the same wherever used which is (Park or Garden Ground) from Hebrew to Greek. Luke 23:43 - 2 Corinthians 12:4 - Rev. 2:7- You can check this in your concordance.

Now Jesus said to the thief who had confessed his unworthiness before the world that "To Day" you will be with me in Paradise. Just where is this Paradise if I may ask? Turn to Revelations 2:7 and let John tell you where this place is. -- Rev 2:7 "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." John just revealed that the Paradise is where the tree of life is. So Jesus and this thief both went to this place where the tree of life is on this very day that Jesus died. Where then is the tree of life found.

We both realize that the tree of life was denied Adam and Eve in the Genesis account. It then disappeared till John revealed exactly where it had been placed. - Rev 22:2 "In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." -- also Rev 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." It was placed in New Jerusalem. -- Continued below --



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I am going to have to come back to this debate in a few weeks time or start my own thread countering it then. I got another thread pressing my time on creation science that is going to sap my research efforts til then. Sorry guys, hope to check back in later...to be continued



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Augustine62
 


I love the way you wrote, it's really beautiful and in fact, MORE beautiful than the outside church/building and indeed more beautiful than the Catholic church, sorry but one issue stands out and I mean STANDS way way out. If they are the bride you suggest, then they have thus become the Harlot (as the Bible suggest) Since I am sure you know that Bible I don't feel it necessary to spend literally an hour providing every passage from beginning to the very end of how much God despises idols. No "Bride" of the LORD- or at least the Bible Author LORD- would ever be married to a "woman" who is not only disobedient now for oh 2000 years, but also flat out opposes what The LORD stands for and does what He is against.

Sorry but NO that Catholic entity is some other entities bride.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Truejew

Continued from above.

I have established, from scripture, that Jesus took the thief with Him on the day of His death to an abode called Paradise which is in New Jerusalem. I believe then that New Jerusalem is the heavenly Kingdom of God which Jesus spoke of when He taught that in His Father's house were many mansions and that He would go there and prepare a place for us. In other words I am led to believe, by scripture, that this is where the kingdom of heaven was established upon Jesus' death. That is my Theology.

If I am correct then Paradise is the New Jerusalem and is established for the righteous souls. Did the thief's body disappear on the cross or was it suddenly changed on the cross when he was put to death by the Roman soldiers?
According to your theology the thief should be still in the ground waiting to be changed. If not then who was it that Jesus carried to Paradise? Can't have it both ways. Either the thief is still waiting for resurrection or he is in Paradise with God this very day. Which do you choose to believe?

Now naturally the Jews deny any of this simply because they have no new testament and they have no Christ Jesus. So the Jews believe that Jesus is a fraud and that as we die we simply lay in the grave till a last day resurrection occurs. Then this ole corpse will be restored and stand in judgment. But that isn't the end. The righteous Jews will then reap a new long life of bless under the king ship of David's throne which will rule the world. This present earth will be renewed under the throne of David and exist till the seventh day or seven thousand years have been expired. Then they die once again as this world is destroyed and live as body less soul in eternal bliss.

Regardless of how you understand this you realize that the human species must die twice in Judaic theology. Either righteous or unrighteous makes no difference. All will die twice. What does Jesus say about this? -- Heb 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" -- How can this be? In your theology your dead physical body will be resurrected and you stand in judgment. If you are righteous you are then changed into a spiritual body but if you are not found righteous you die once again. But Jesus does not agree with you.

Revelations clearly tells us that there is only one second death -- Rev 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." You see that hell is automatically cast into the lake of fire because hell has already been judged. You would not be in hell if you had not been judged and sentenced to hell. If everyone is still in the grave waiting for this resurrection you promote, then who is in hell? Also tell me then where is this thief that was with Jesus? You mean to tell me that this thief got a special pass? What do you think truejew?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maymunah
reply to post by Augustine62
 


I love the way you wrote, it's really beautiful and in fact, MORE beautiful than the outside church/building and indeed more beautiful than the Catholic church, sorry but one issue stands out and I mean STANDS way way out. If they are the bride you suggest, then they have thus become the Harlot (as the Bible suggest) Since I am sure you know that Bible I don't feel it necessary to spend literally an hour providing every passage from beginning to the very end of how much God despises idols. No "Bride" of the LORD- or at least the Bible Author LORD- would ever be married to a "woman" who is not only disobedient now for oh 2000 years, but also flat out opposes what The LORD stands for and does what He is against.

Sorry but NO that Catholic entity is some other entities bride.


This conflicts in entirety with the doctrine on Marriage as plainly written in the Bible: two become one. The Bride is one with Christ, who is perfect in all ways, being the embodiment of virtues, being God in the Flesh (In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God: 2nd person of the Holy Trinity which is ONE in unison [not three separate but One in three persons, perfectly unified-- think body, mind, and spirit for a humanly deficient explanation] )


"Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. "
- Genesis 2:24



3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
- Matthew 19:3-6 (Jesus speaking)



25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: 26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. 28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. 29 For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: 30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.
- Ephesians 5:25-32

By the words of the Lord, from Genesis to Matthew, and Ephesians relayed through St. Paul, this is impossible for the Bride of Christ to play the whore. There is no divorce, or defection of that which is Christ, for Christ is perfect and the Bride is perfect being united into one flesh with the Lord.

The Harlot of Apocalypse must be understood, then, as a usurper and never having been a bride, but always a whore.

"And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" Is not the Church the Bride of Christ? And did not Our Lord say that when two marry they become one flesh? So what communion is there with a system claiming to be the Church, who, as a Whore, claims to be the Bride of Christ, and the Bride is called by them the Whore? None.

Should not the Husband know His own Bride? What concord can a husband have with one who is a whore and disparages his true bride? And with many whores lying, does He not still know Her who is True, as He is True, and are True to each other?

The Son is the perfect Husband, and always knows His Bride, having no accord with the claims of that which is in the employ of a mere abusive, accusatory pimp.

The Catholic Church's truth has withstood the tests of all eras, cultures, and everything else thrown against it for the last 2k years. True Judaism, and understanding of it, is found also with this belief, for we went from the engagement of Israel to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb; But modern Judaism is not the True Judaism of the Prophets and is death unto itself.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Augustine62
Well, in terms of the Catholic Church, which is the Church Christ founded,


No it is not actually, that is just a claim that they make - it is just a church that worships the pope and Mary.

en.wikipedia.org... explains it

And the church of Rome hide kiddy fiddlers.

Just like another church that worships a materiel object and a corpse....does anyone know where the word "church" originally came from?

Webster says that the root of this word "church" is a Saxon word "circe, or circ, or cyric."
(snip!)
The first entry as to the etymological meaning and origin of the church is "circe." Now for those who are versed in Greek, this connection is so obvious and embarrassing that Webster did not put this noun in his dictionary, but he did put the adjective which is "Circean" I cannot prove it, but I think this omission was intentional. Under "Circean" we find the following definition: "adjective; Pertaining to Circe, the fabled daughter of Sol and Perseis, who was supposed to possess great knowledge of magic and venomous herbs, by which she was able to charm and fascinate." Later editions of Webster's finally had the courage to enter the noun under which we find more information: "Circe noun [L., fr. Gr. Kirke.] In the Odyssey, an island sorceress who turned her victims by magic into beasts but was thwarted by Odysseus with the herb moly given him by Hermes-Circean, circaean adj.."

tentmaker.org...

So, the very word is based on the name of a Goddess, just like the word "Hell" is based on a Goddess. (Hel, Norse) Makes one wonder why Christianity used names of the Goddess to name their stuff?
And why they deemed it necessary to steal Pagan Symbols and make they their own? Does anyone think the Church was attempting to stamp out the Goddess and anything to do with her? So the males could then run the world?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
i got into a discussion about the catholic church on another site about the worship of mary and the saints. and that no matter what, all ministers, priests reverends etc.... preach their own beliefs and prejudices.

in the first bit, i was saying that the catholic church does worship mary and the saints. many members do. why are there miracles attributed to her? yes, she was supposed to be a virgin when she gave birth to jesus. later on though, she lived a normal life with joseph. she had sex with him and gave birth to other children. luke 8-19 and mark 3-31. no where in the bible does it say that one should pray to mary. people do. then there are the saints. people pray to the saints for miracles as well. does this not make the catholic church a pantheon? where does it say in the bible that one is to pray to any one else but jesus for help?

my second point. i have a friend who is catholic. we got into the discussion mentioned. he was in disagreement, saying that the church and its leaders don't do that. i asked him if he knew the story of sodom and gomorrah. he said yes. i then asked him if he knew what happened after. he said no. i asked him if he knew that lot had had sex with his daughters and got them pregnant. he he didn't believe it. i showed him the passage, gen 19 30-36. in embarrassed voice, he said that in all his life, he had never heard or been told that.

in short, all men and women who are religious leaders will always be human and will preach to their own beliefs and interpretations.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Augustine62
Well, in terms of the Catholic Church, which is the Church Christ founded,


No it is not actually, that is just a claim that they make - it is just a church that worships the pope and Mary.

en.wikipedia.org... explains it

And the church of Rome hide kiddy fiddlers.

Just like another church that worships a materiel object and a corpse....does anyone know where the word "church" originally came from?

Webster says that the root of this word "church" is a Saxon word "circe, or circ, or cyric."
(snip!)
The first entry as to the etymological meaning and origin of the church is "circe." Now for those who are versed in Greek, this connection is so obvious and embarrassing that Webster did not put this noun in his dictionary, but he did put the adjective which is "Circean" I cannot prove it, but I think this omission was intentional. Under "Circean" we find the following definition: "adjective; Pertaining to Circe, the fabled daughter of Sol and Perseis, who was supposed to possess great knowledge of magic and venomous herbs, by which she was able to charm and fascinate." Later editions of Webster's finally had the courage to enter the noun under which we find more information: "Circe noun [L., fr. Gr. Kirke.] In the Odyssey, an island sorceress who turned her victims by magic into beasts but was thwarted by Odysseus with the herb moly given him by Hermes-Circean, circaean adj.."

tentmaker.org...

So, the very word is based on the name of a Goddess, just like the word "Hell" is based on a Goddess. (Hel, Norse) Makes one wonder why Christianity used names of the Goddess to name their stuff?
And why they deemed it necessary to steal Pagan Symbols and make they their own? Does anyone think the Church was attempting to stamp out the Goddess and anything to do with her? So the males could then run the world?


Ridiculous attempt at etymology much?

The word "church" is derived from ekklesia

www.biblestudytools.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
Snip for space


On your first point:

There are two understandings of "worship" in the Greek/Latin: Dulia and Latria: which gets entirely lost in the deficiency of modern English.




(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (City of God X.2) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the "discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia and the reasons for which it is shown to persons or things will be found in the articles IMAGES, RELICS, SAINTS. See also ADORATION and WORSHIP.

Source: www.newadvent.org...

Our Lady never had relations with St. Joseph:

V. Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Source: www.scripturecatholic.com...-V

Per Lot... so what? It's not condoning this act of Lot getting wasted and his daughters using him to produce children. And the Bible clearly goes on to state, in the following verses, the children produced were Moab and Ammon: historical enemies of Israel whom God destroyed. You can't just rip things out of context and say "it's in the Bible so this is what the Church demands!" No way man. Sheesh.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Augustine62 because: spelling



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   


Textin short, all men and women who are religious leaders will always be human and will preach to their own beliefs and interpretations.
reply to post by blackthorne
 


blackthorne That was a good article and biblical truth too.
Adding a thought to that reminds me of the pompous Jew who thought himself better than the filthy gentile.

Out of that union of incest between Lot and his daughters came the tribe called Moabites. The biblical Ruth and her sister Orpha were a Moabites and as Ruth embraced Judaism, her sister Orpah did not. But the story does not end there. King David came from the seed of Ruth while Goliath came from the seed of Orpah. How many Christians know that Ruth was King David's great grandmother? Not many I would bet. And then there is Ruth's sister Orpha, who was none other than the biblical Goliath's mother. Now doesn't that make David and Goliath cousins?? Jewish anthology verifies this biblical fact. Where does that leave the biblical snobs? David was a mutt just like you and me.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Augustine62
 

lord, your mother and brothers are outside and wish to speak with you. jesus then siad, here are my mother and brothers. then jesus went out and spoke with them.

even then, people sure as heck knew what a mother and brother is and was. trying to interpret "your mother and brothers are outside" saying that means other people? come on! that is wishful thinking. and what is even more wishful thinking is a married man and wife remaining chaste and celibate. for what reason would you or any one expect that? the bible says that mary was a virgin when she conceived and until she gave birth. where does it say that she remained so for the rest of her life? should not mary and joseph "be fruitful and multiply?"



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Do they teach from the bible? Yes, in their own minds, however, there's nothing noble about a THEOCRAT saying they are of the christian faith, or putting green halos over their heads.
I could easily write my story, and claim to be divine, but I don't because I have dignity and respect for the jurisdiction of the creator.
We are obviously a blessed people, except the fallen ones
edit on 24-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by Augustine62
 

lord, your mother and brothers are outside and wish to speak with you. jesus then siad, here are my mother and brothers. then jesus went out and spoke with them.

even then, people sure as heck knew what a mother and brother is and was. trying to interpret "your mother and brothers are outside" saying that means other people? come on! that is wishful thinking. and what is even more wishful thinking is a married man and wife remaining chaste and celibate. for what reason would you or any one expect that? the bible says that mary was a virgin when she conceived and until she gave birth. where does it say that she remained so for the rest of her life? should not mary and joseph "be fruitful and multiply?"


In a post or two above, I answered with the verses shedding light on Jesus' "brothers". It doesn't have to mean blood brothers, but can also mean kinsmen, or even a unity in brotherhood between non-relations: brothers in arms, etc.

Here's some more:


IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Source: www.scripturecatholic.com...-IV



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Augustine62
 


I really do appreciate the information you've written to my post, but reading it more than once I still could not find the relevance? You gave all the proper passages in the Bible and you seem to know the husband well and the bride and her role and his but again...What would the son of God (who bore the spirit without measure) have to do with a "church" that is filled with not only blood but apostasy and STILL to this DAY cannot seem to grasp that the Messiah is no longer hanging on the cross and yet continue keeping the blasphemous images all over the place within their church.

Do the Catholic's just not understand what Idolatry means and is? Not at anytime in any discussion I've witnessed will Catholic's ever address the issue of the "statues" and that's just a portion of the idols inside their "house" there are also relics, images of everything and everyone from Christ to Mary to animals and the bigger most strangest issue of all, the necromancy.

Just please think before responding, because you need to show me Bible verses that support an idol bride and only THEN will I consider the possibility of the Catholic church being "the Bride".

For the record though....I have a conviction within me that always assures me that Jesus' covered all our sin's. ALL of them.




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Maymunah
 

You referred to GOD as HE. How do you come to this concept.

Why would GOD have Gender? Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Augustine62
Well, in terms of the Catholic Church, which is the Church Christ founded,


No it is not actually, that is just a claim that they make - it is just a church that worships the pope and Mary.

en.wikipedia.org... explains it

And the church of Rome hide kiddy fiddlers.
edit on 20-8-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)


Some say it's mostly been hijacked. Also why the protestant movment emerged.

Ya I agree with you, your dead on.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


The fact remains, when we resurrect, our bodies resurrect with us. Otherwise Jesus' body would have remained in the tomb. Mary is still in the grave. She cannot hear you. No long posts twisting or misunderstanding Scripture is going to change that.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 

Text of all religions had to be translated and over time the actual translations or in some cases....the Mistranslations of the Text which itself is always one version of several or a Text based on an Older Text...with the point that do to HUMAN ERROR...there have been many mistakes in the process of providing what either the Original or Close to Original Text meaning was or we base religious beliefs upon questionable sources.

I have posted this before but I will do so again. The Rosetta Stone, which is housed in the British Museum, is a black, possibly basalt slab with three languages on it (Greek, demotic and hieroglyphs) each saying the same thing. Because the words are translated into the other languages, it provided Jean-Francois Champollion the key to the mystery of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Without this...we would not have been able to get many translations of Religious Text. As one particular translation occurred a mistake was made. MOSES did not PART THE RED SEA...He and his people CROSSED THE REED SEA...a marshy Tidal Area near the Med. At low tide Moses and his people crossed...the following Egyptian Army Crossed in pursuit as the Tide was coming in. They did not all drown but the Egyptian Chariots were swamped and ended the pursuit. This are has been the host of digs where many Egyptian Chariots have been recovered.

Thus a a Mistranslation created a Fantasy scenario that even the Vatican Admits is incorrect. When asked why the Vatican does not change the Bible back to the original Text...the answer was that they felt a change at this point would confuse the Faithful. This is but one of a Multitude of Mistakes that are within the Bible so Teaching from it other than to use it as an Analogy to express a lesson...is fooling oneself. Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Jesus used the stigmata to prove resurrection, on his return do you think the stigmata will still be visible?
I'm forever a doubting Thomas and will be looking for these scars as proof.

This discussion is going very well, I would like to request that you add the translations of the scriptures you post. I keep what I believe to be the most common translations open on my desktop, but I'm continuously seeing different translations, if you could just add KJV, ESV, JSV, etc... Thanks
edit on 25-8-2012 by SmikeS because: scar



img.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 25-8-2012 by SmikeS because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-8-2012 by SmikeS because: image






top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join