James, Brother of Jesus Ossuary a Fake

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

We had a previous discussion regarding the finding of an ancient ossuary that had the inscription "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus." The Protestants were wanting to use this as proof that Mary had other children, but it was clearly explained that even if this was authentic, it said nothing about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

At any rate, it appears the last part of the inscription "Brother of Jesus" is a fake. Click here to view the article.

http://www.jewsweek.com/myturn/320.htm

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), November 27, 2002

Answers

Here's a great article from an old friend of mine from the seminary. It's the best I've seen so far regarding the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity which has arisen anew with the news reports of this ossuary.

Click here to read the article.

http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/111702box.htm

God Bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), November 27, 2002.


Thanks Hollis, that was really interesting!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 27, 2002.


You know what will be really great? When the media hypes the fact that this is NOT real as much as it hyped "Jesus had brothers".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 27, 2002.


Frank,

Don't hold your breath!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), November 27, 2002.


Hollis, thanks for the article. I know you're aim is to support the claims of our Catholic Church with regard to Mary's virginity.

Rochelle Altman, the writer of the article claims Yakob bar Yosef (James son of Joseph in Aramaic) is true. He claims brother of Yeshu (Jesus) is fake.

Just think for a second. This is a Jewish magazine. Even though Jesus was a Jew, his own people have not even accepted him as a prophet. In the Talmud he is even called the son of Panthera. It is said he was killed for practicing sorcery and leading israel astray. You will not hear his name in the synagogue.

Assume the scripture is false.What if the scripture is of a later origin? Does it make it fake? The scripture in Greek " petros en = Peter is in here does't date from Peter's time of burial. There is no canonical writing that authentifies Peter ever being at Rome. He wasn't there when Paul went there around 61 AD. Paul gathered the Jewish leaders then to explain them the Good news about Jesus. Obvioulsly Peter had not talked to them yet. (Acts 28:17-30). No letter of Paul mentions Peter at Rome. I Peter mentions him at Babylon(I Pet. 5:13). The introduction mentions Pontus, Galatia,, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bhythinia, places closer to Babylon, which still existed then.(I Pet. 1:1-2). The letter is addressed to the Jewish dispersion or diaspora in exile, not gentiles like us. Mark mentions 4 brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon (Mark 6:3, Mt 13:55). James is the most prominent of the Jesus' brothers.(Acts 15,Acts 21:17-26), Galatians 2, I cor. 15:3-9. If james had not been a close relative of Jesus, he couldn't have the power of persuasion to have the last word with regard to the gentiles, Acts 15).

Our Catholic Church makes use of the Church Fathers for the "Tradition". Unfortunately many of those Church fathers have been considered heterodox or heretical in their writings. None of them is cosidered a saint: Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Tertullian, Eusebius, to mention a few.Forget about Arrhius or Nestorius. The Gospel of Mark 3:31-36 mentions Jesus brothers and mother. Origin says: " Some say, basing on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, or the Book o James, that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph, by a former wife, whom he married before Mary".(9.424)Now, these books were rejected by the Church.

The Letter of Clement is not recognized as canonical. Irineus 9around 180 AD)mentions that Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. Paul yes , Peter?(no physical evidence). The stone marking is the only possible evidence of Peter ever been there. What if someone claims because the writing is of a later time, Peter wasn't there. Does it mean Peter wasn't there?.

For the record: other than the apostles, Stephen, and the martyrs of the persecutions in the first 3 centuries, most of the saints of the church, excluding John Paul IIs, were people who ageed with the decisions of the First Council ( I am talking 325 AD, not the first in 51 AD), and later ones.

For the record , too, in response to a question posed by Kiwi before.I have been called an Arrian by my Catholic priests, a Protestant by my Catholic friends, lost (perdido) by my own family. yet, I actually did my own cathechism, communion, chose my own godfather who was a minister of the eucharist, worked for my Church in several ministries,this without the help of my family. On the contrary, it was me who brought them into the catholic church.

I have never joined any other Church.I have always been a person who questions everything. I ACCEPTED THE POPE. I EVEN PRAYED FOR HIS WELL BEING WHEN ONE NIGHT, IN 1991 I WAS TOLD HE WAS DESTINED TO DIE IN 1998. I WROTE TO HIM IN 1997. HE IS STILL ALIVE, EVEN TO THIS DAY. The basic doctrine of a Catholic is accepting the Pope as leader of the Church and accepting Jesus as the Christ. The rest is secondary.

Jesus used to say::"But of that day an hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the father. (Mt 24:36)", does this make him not God? . None of the letters attributed to Paul call Jesus God himself. Even Jesus prayed to God!(Mt 26:3646,Mk 14:32-42,Like 22:39-46,in Luke 22:19 Jesus recites the Kiddush: "Baruch atta Yahweh elocheinu, melech ha olam." These words are said by our priests during the consecration of the bread and wine even today.(If jesus is God, is he praying to himself?)

It was a priest who when I was 19, told me god's name was Yavé. Jesus even questioned what the Pharisees and scribes used to teach. (see Mathew 23). By his time many false beliefs and practices had entered his religion. It didn't matter to Jesus that such and such a Rabbi said this. He always quoted from scripture.See Mathew ch. 5-8. Just because someone said something makes it right. Maybe got the wrong facts or misinterpreted them.

Does quoting scripture make me a Protestant? A Jehova's Witness, and so on...?



-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), November 27, 2002.



No, you're a Gonzalez; and again you don't know what you're talking about.

Elpidio, if you were a Catholic you wouldn't say the basic doctrines are accepting the Pope as leader of the Church and accepting Jesus as the Christ and the rest is secondary. Why come here and patronize good Catholics?

No Catholic believes only in basic doctrines. We have the Creed; and we believe the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, we believe in life eternal, we believe in the commandments, we believe every word that came from the mouth of Christ.

We do not believe Jesus Christ had siblings; it couldn't be so. Possibly you believe it; and we don't much care. We'd like to be able to teach you the truth, but it seems you're infatuated with esoteric knowledge. --You can't be bothered with Catholic doctrine, much less faith. So you learned the name of Yawheh; and you've read some of the Kabbala & Midrash and other monster trivia.

That doesn't make you a good controversialist, it makes your message simply condescending. I wonder if you might not write a book; an anthology of the mysterious.

Somebody might read it. You could dispute the whereabouts of Saint Peter after A.D. 33-43, and never mention Rome or even Jerusalem. You could say it was a lie that he asked to be crucified with his feet pointing to the sky; he was sawed in half by the queen of the Amazons. That ought to make your reputation.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 27, 2002.


Elpidio,

You state: "I know you're [sic] aim is to support the claims of our Catholic Church with regard to Mary's virginity."

Not really. Whether the last part of the inscription is a fake or not really doesn't make a big difference to me or Catholics regarding the perpetual virginity. We have the authentic Word of God (Sacred Scriptures + Sacred Tradition as authentically preserved, presented and interpreted by the Magisterium) that gives us certainty of this fact. I just wanted to add this to the discussion since it doesn't appear this article from Jewsweek will make it anywhere in the mainstream press as indicated by Frank.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), November 29, 2002.


Hollis, I don't mean any disrespect to your beliefs now. I was once one of Catholicisms greatest defenders. I sounded more like Eugene Chavez. Just like him, I was born in November. Religion is in my veins. I began a quest for the truth since I was 9 years. I finished reading my first Catholic Bible at 13. At 24, I began, like Joan of Arc to hear voices in my dreams.She was burned after liberating France from the English. She's now a Catholic saint.These Voices talked about the future. That included the voice of God. I have no problems with scripture, only with tradition. Some traditions don't add up. According to Papias, Mathtew wrote the first Gospel. It wasn't probably the one that has his name now, because Mark' is older. Our canonical Matthew borrowed from it around 600 verses. The list goes on.

As for you Eugene, I was a pirana down the Amazon. I went devouring everything along the way. Unlike Solomon, I didn't lose my faith. You try to defend the leaders of the Church like if they were God themselves. Even Jesus questioned the leaders of his day. The original forms of the creed are at Acts 10-11 and I Corinthians 15. Do you defend the President of the United States, like they used to say, My country right or wrong? or... hypocritically you question his acts? Remember he was elected to do Good: To uphold the Constitution.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 02, 2002.


Jmj

Hello, Elpidio. I'm sorry to learn that you have lost your Catholic faith. The good news is that it can be revived. Keep praying!

You stated: "According to Papias, Matthew wrote the first Gospel. It wasn't probably the one that has his name now, because Mark's is older. Our canonical Matthew borrowed from it around 600 verses. The list goes on."

The "list" that "goes on" is the list of modernist, revisionist-history tales that you have unfortunately "bought." The "Marcan priority" is one example of "revisionist history" which -- you have apparently not heard -- is gradually being abandoned. It came out of liberal protestantism and was once accepted by most Catholic scripture scholars ... but is now rejected more and more in orthodox Catholic circles.

Elpidio, you flat-out stated that "Mark's [gospel] is older," but you simply cannot say that unless you are (like Mel Brooks) a 2,000-year-old man. You were not there, my friend, when Sts. Matthew and Mark wrote, so you are incapable of telling us that "Mark's is older." Some humility, please, Senor! Do you think that we are going to accept your word over that of Papias, who wrote in the earliest centuries of Christendom?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2002.


John,

How has the Markan Priority been abandoned? In the majority of what I have read, this Markan Priority still seems to hold water, and, in fact, I have not really seen the evidence of this abandonment. For example, Luke Johnson, a renown Scripture scholar, and one cited by Dr. Scott Hahn, seems to hold this theory, as well as Joseph Fitzmyer, another scholar cited by Scott Hahn. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to discount all the others on the "list," being that there is so much new scholarship being accepted, and stuff difficult to discount when looked at in light of the Church, and the Scriptures as a whole. In fact, if you are going to discount the Markan Priority, then that would also deem The Gospel of Q, M, and L obsolete as well.

I understand your distrust, and I was leary at first as well, however, I think there is much that can be learned from this scholarship, when put in the right context, especially with regard to the Church and her faithful, Scott Hahn, being one of those faithful.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 07, 2002.



Hello, "seminarian."

You asked: "How has the Markan Priority been abandoned? In the majority of what I have read, this Markan Priority still seems to hold water, and, in fact, I have not really seen the evidence of this abandonment."

I was a bit taken aback by your question, because I did not say that Marcan Priority "has ... been abandoned." Instead, I said what I have been reading and hearing during the past decade -- that "'Marcan priority' ... is gradually being abandoned. It ... is now rejected more and more in orthodox Catholic circles."

The reason, I suspect, that you "have not really seen the evidence of this" is that the abandonment has begun to take place in some orthodox seminaries and outside of seminaries (universities, periodicals, etc.) -- but probably not in your seminary.

You mentioned Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, but I have read some negative things about him, so I don't trust really trust his opinions. You also mentioned Prof. Hahn as quoting some proponents of Marcan Priority. That seemed awfully odd to me, since I thought that Hahn had spoken or written against Marcan. On the Internet, I found the following undocumented statement, which you may be able to verify: "Two contemporary scholars who argue effectively for Matthean priority are Dom Bernard Orchard, OSB, and Scott Hahn." Then I found this article by Dom Bernard.

You also said that if someone is "going to discount the Marcan Priority, then that would also deem the Gospel of Q, M, and L obsolete as well." That is quite correct! According to what I have read, the concept of "Q" (quelle = source) was a fabrication that was required to help explain part of the theory of Marcan Priority. There is no actual "Q" manuscript in existence and no ancient testimony that one ever existed.

Here are some more things that you could read on the subject. I think that they may surprise you:
Farmer, William R. "The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis." Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1976. Argues for a return to the Matthean priority. Book is now reissued by Mercer University Press in the wake of new converts to the Matthean priority. Related site is here.
Link #0
Link #1
Link #2
Link #3 [read at least from the "Marcan Priority" secion, about 40% of the way down)

God bless you.


-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.


Thanks John. When I get a chance I will check out those links. In the meantime, you might go here to see Scott Hahn's Bibliography.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 08, 2002.


Thanks, "seminarian."

I gave a quick scan to the bibliography. It's very clear that Dr. Hahn is an eclectic. He tries to find the truth that is hiding in anyone's writings, even if that person believes something heretical in some areas. (I have been following his career since 1988, a year after he made his initial conversion tape. He became a Catholic in 1986.)

You were right to say that Scott Hahn lists Luke Johnson and Fr. Fitzmyer as sources of his. However, their being listed in the bibliography should not be taken to mean that Hahn agrees with them on Marcan priority. You will see that he lists MANY Protestants in his bibliography, but surely disagrees with them on many points. For example, he lists Norman Geisler, an outspoken proponent of "sola scriptura."

If you glance at the bibliography again, you'll see that Hahn also names the two people whom I specifically mentioned in my last post as writers against Marcan Priority: William Farmer and Dom Bernard Orchard. I think that the chances are very good that the unattributed quotation I gave earlier is accurate -- that Hahn either doubts or disbelieves in Marcan Priority. Besides the clues already given, there is the fact that, about a decade ago, Hahn was associated with Karl Keating's at Catholic Answers, Inc., and I believe that the apologists of CAI (Keating, James Akin, et al.) do argue against Marcan Priority.

Seminarian, I urge you to read at least "Link #0" (above) today.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2002.


Ok, I read that link, and most of the others you provided as well. However, I don't think I am entirely convinced, especially since, in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, written jointly by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, they too do not give a definitive solution either. In fact, they also approach the issue by way of specific dating, coming to the conclusion, that both Mt and Mk were probably written before A.D. 70. However, and this is the reason I am not completely convinced, they place Mt most likely before A.D. 70, but are inclined to place Mk in either the 60's, or even as early as between A.D. 41 and 54. In fact, they cite Irenaeus as believing Mk to have been written after the martydom of Peter, that date being A.D. 67. They are not, however, as specific with regard to Mt. Therefore, I am still inclined to believe that, as a result, there is still room for Markan priority.

Personally, the more I research it, and the more I speak to my professor, I am more inclined to the Markan Priority. It seems to make more sense than Matthean priority, and, contrary to what that article on that link says, I don't see it as a hindrance to the faith, or as an affront to the work of early Church Fathers. Granted, that does not mean I am not open to the Matthean priority, rather, I have not seen enough evidence to support it as such.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 10, 2002.


@

-- (...@...), December 13, 2002.


Dear Elpidio, I fear you have become the victim of some anti-Catholic rhetoric. Please refer to the thread entitled "Was Peter ever in Rome," and you will see that he most certainly was in Rome.

Many well-known Protestant theologians have finally accepted that truth as well. My advice to you is to read the ACTUAL writings of the fathers and do not rely on ANYONE to interpret them for you.

Love

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 13, 2002.


Mary could not have other Children. She was the spouse of the Holy Ghost, at the Incarnation, and could not then, have relations with a man. She is also Mother of the Church.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.

To John G, Seminarian, and Gail. I don't have access to the internet like I used to. They moved me out of my roo. I am a math teacher in High School. So I haven't been able to respond on a daily basis to some of your comments.

I agree with seminarian on Mark being first. John has some valid arguments with regard to Matthew been first: especially Papias. But remember that Papias says that others copied what Matthew wrote and wrote it their own way. But I still believe the Matthew we know is not 100% the Matthew of Papias. I also have a copy of the uncanonical Gospel of Thomas. I was 20 when I pasted the English and Greek passages of Matthew, Mark, and Luke for comparison. Even Thomas parallels the 3 synoptics, especially on the sayings. Then original Matthew was a sayings gospel.Since Luke and canonical Matthew took almost all of Mark, then Mark has to be older. There are discrepancies on the geography of Mark which would make sense if Mark follows a sayings Gospel, most likely original Matthew. Modern Matthew and Luke then borrowed mostly from Mark.

Gail, I have studied the works of Paul time and time again, since I was 11. He always puts God first, Jesus second. It makes sense. Paul could have been stoned to death if he had said Jesus was God himself. Remenber he used to go to the synagogue at each town he visited. Except for 1 Timothy, there is an implication Jesus may or may not be God himself. There, one Greek word, os, without the line in the o says he, with the line on the o = theta, it is an abbreviation for the word God. So the passage, a song from the early church, could say: God came in the flesh, or he ( Jesus) came in the flesh. It is not that I listened to bad Catholic propaganda, but certain passages say the opposite of what I was taught as a Roman Catholic. I am more of a Saint Thomas ( the apostle) follower: see to believe. Now you understand why I teach mathematics: 1+2 =3. It can't never be 4.

So for me: Jesus used to pray to God (not to himself), he said there were things he didn't know, only the father, he died on the cross for our sins ( God cannot die, he is eternal), Saint Paul ( the oldest writer) never says Jesus is God (in the oldest manuscripts), Jesus' brothers and mother look for him ( why doesn't Mark mention they are the sons or brothers of somebody else?). Thus Jesus had a natural father on Earth, Joseph, through God's Holy Spirit, because the prophecies said that he had to be a son of David, and that's how people called him. Thus Jesus is no God himself, but his son, the one chosen from eternity to reconcile us to him.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 16, 2002.


Gail, you thought Elpidio just had a small problem or two. No. He is not even a Christian any more. He doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. He lost his Catholic faith.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 17, 2002.

Elpidio Gonzalez,

Explain for us, John's view of Jesus. "In the beginning there was the Word. And the Word WAS GOD, and the Word was with God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.


Let's ask Elpidio another question. It may help him understand. In a discussion with the Jews, Christ was accused of having a devil. The reason was, He had told them "If anyone keeps my word, he shall never see death'' Well, that proves to us you have a devil, they said.

''Our father Abraham died; as other prophets died. Are you then greater than Abraham?'' --Our Lord simply answered, ''Abraham your father rejoiced that he was to see my day. He saw it, and was glad.'' The Jews therefore said to Him, thou art not yet fifty years old; and hast thou seen Abraham?

''Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am. - -They therefore took up stones to cast at Him but Jesus hid Himself, and went out from the temple.''

Why did the Jews want to stone Our Lord? Because, in this statement, (John 8:58) He told them *I AM* --which is the name of Almighty God. To them, it was blasphemy.

Elpidio, you took pains once to explain what God's real name is. You said it's Yave. Others say Jehova, and the Church teaches more like Yawheh. All meaning, ''I am'' (Exodus 3:14.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.


Masterful, Eugene!

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

I agree with Gene, on the Jews. Not to often. However, the Jews are not our separated brethren. As Our Lord, wept over them, I too feel for them. Some of my dearest childhood friends were Jews, Even Jews in the extended family, by marriage. Nevertheless, unless they accept the faith of Our Divine Lord, they will never see the Beatific Vision. Maybe I won't either, but not for the same reasons. American Jews, especially, have every opportunity to know the Catholic Faith. No invincible ignorance there. Not one of us can ever dare to say, who is going to hell, but we can have a pretty good idea, of who,(as a religion), will not get to Heaven.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.

Only one who is in a state of sanctifying grace (the right wedding garment) shall enter the kingdom of heaven. That's Catholics, Jews, and any others. We know of baptism and the holy sacraments. But we don't know who has been given that grace; only God knows. We do know HOW to avail ourselves of sanctifying grace in the Church. Others may or may not avail themselves. But if God wills it, they certainly COULD; through the same Church. Not necessarily under the same conditions as faithful Catholics, but by extaordinary means. --It will come to them from Jesus Christ, whether they're Buddhists or Jews or Catholics.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.

Your reasoning is flawed, Eugene. If I say, I AM Elpidio, that's that make me God? After all, I AM. Yet, you will say I am crazy. Why? Because you and I know I AM not the true God. I am a mortal, like you are. The first commandment says: Ani Yahweh...Ani = I am. Yahweh = he causes to be. Translation: I am the creator. So when Jesus said I AM , he didn't actually mean he was God, because he wasn't. If Jesus was, then he wouldn't pray to him, the true God.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 18, 2002.

Ed Richards, you wrote: "American Jews, especially, have every opportunity to know the Catholic Faith. No invincible ignorance there."

Someone must have explained "invincible ignorance" to you incorrectly.
It does not mean "lack of knowledge of what Catholics believe." That would simply be "ignorance."
There is a very good reason for the adjective, "invincible," which means "unconquerable." If someone is invincibly ignorant, it means that, despite reasonable diligence in seeking the truth, he has not become persuaded of the truth of a doctrine. The person may be aware of the doctrine (e.g., the necessity of Baptism and embracing Catholicism), but has simply never been convinced that it is correct. Thus the term "innocently ignorant" is sometimes used instead.

Just hearing the Catholic truth doesn't automatically convince every hearer. Few of the Jews, Hindus, etc., who happen to see a good TV show that explains the gospel story are actually moved to conversion by what they see, immediately if ever. Most of them instead remain invincibly ignorant and thus not culpable for their error. Ditto for (probably) most of the Jews of America, whom you wrongly labeled as suffering from "no invincible ignorance." [By the way, if a non-Catholic does not show reasonable diligence concerning the requirement to convert to our faith, he is "vincibly (or culpably) ignorant," but this may not automatically cause damnation. It could be a forgiveable, venial sin, say some theologians.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.


First of all, I am exhausted, just finished all my exams, papers, presentations, etc., so I will not probably see the response until I get home.

That said, I just wanted to throw one more point out there, in Mk 14:62 Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, after just admitting that He is the Christ, "the Son of the Blessed One." The Son of Man has a Messianic and Eternal King connotation to it. In fact, the Son of Man is first introduced in the OT. Daniel 7:13, Ezekiel 2:1, and Psalm 110 are a few key examples. Daniel 7:13, specifically refers to "Son of Man" :

"I was gazing into the visions of the night, when I saw, coming on the clouds of heaven, as it were a son of man. He came to the One most venerable and was led into his presence. On him was conferred rule, honour and kingship, and all peoples, nations and languages became his servants. His rule is an everlasting rule which will never pass away, and his kingship will never come to an end.

It is important to note that Son of Man has a connotation of that of being an Eternal King; everlasting rule.

Psalm 110 also attests to an Eternal Messiah as "Priest, Prophet, and King."

Ezekiel though addressing a prohet does not discount this in that Jesus was expected to come as a prophet, who prophecied with the best of them.

Therefore, when Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of Man" it is deemed blasphemy because they don't recognize Him as the God who was to come. However, keep in mind that THEY accused Him of blasphemy, why would they accuse Him of such a thing, had they not already associated the title "Son of Man" with God? They, in a sense, were doing what so many people did, they looked at Jesus as a mere man, when He indeed was more than that, He was/is the "Son of Man."

Son of God too has similar connotations. In fact, Matthew starts his Gospel with the Geneaology that associates Jesus' succession with the line of David. As we all know the line of David meant that you were in a family of royalty, and all males were potential successors to the throne. So, this connotation was Matthew's foreshadowing of the King who is to come.

Also, everytime Jesus would meet with a demon, even Satan himself, Jesus was referred to as the "Son of God." In fact, the demons of Gadara asked point blank, "What do you want with us, Son of God? "

Further, in 2 Samuel 7:14-15 it becomes evident that succesor to David's throne is the Son of God. Also, in Mt 3:16 -17 Jesus is revealed by the Father as His Son.

Now, this does not diminish Jesus as God, rather all of what I said, only affirms it. The intellectual leap that you might have to take is by abandonding it to faith, as our Holy Father states so eloquently in his encyclical Fides et Ratio. The problem you seem to have is with the Trinity, not with bible itself. In fact, as Church history has shown, all of the beliefs you have ascribed to are not in anyway new. In fact, the majority of what you hold has been condemned as one heresy or another. One in particular that seems evident is your denial of the hypostatic union, the belief that denies that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. It was dealt with in the Council of Nicea (325) in order to reaffirm not only the Trinity, but also the two natures of Christ.

So, you see Scripture and Tradition have their place and merit in the course of salvation history. In fact, when you deny one for the other, you are removing an important element to every Christian's faith. The Scriptures are rooted in a long history, and the heresies that sprung up as a result were also dealt with time and time again. Just because it is not as evident today as it was in early Church does not negate their overall existence.

I will pray for you, I wish you well, and have a very Merry Christmas

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 19, 2002.


Dear Elpidio:
You say my resoning is flawed. Might be; but my reasoning isn't the point. The words of jesus Christ are, ''Before Abraham came to be, I AM.'' Just ask yourself, ''You are WHAT, Jesus?'' And, ask, ''You mean you were before Abraham, already living?'' ''I Am''.

Not I am Jesus of Nazareth. ''I AM.''

Moses inquired of the Lord, appearing to him on the mount under the appearance of a burning bush-- ''Lord, who shall I say sent me? What NAME shall I tell them?''

''Tell them who sent you is I am who AM.'' said God. ''I AM sent you.'' (Ex 3 :14.)

''Yave'' means I am. Jesus called Himself Yave; and He said HE IS before Abraham came to be. In fact, He is with the Father from eternity; He is God the Son.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.


John 20:27-28

Then he said to Thomas [Elpidio], "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

Thomas [Elpidio] answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.


John,

Since your name is John, and you love that Gospel so much, here are some more quotes, friend.

Notice of whom is Jesus speaking:

John 8:13 The Pharisees then said to him, You are bearing witness to yourself, your testimony is not true."...8:17 "In your law is written that the testimony of two men is true. I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me."...8:31 I speak of what I have seen with my Father,...8:40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God......8:49 Jesus answered," I have not a demon; but I honor my father...8:50 Yet I do not seek my own glory, there is one who seeks it and he will be the judge.

Notice the testimony of the man born blind about Jesus:

Jn 9:1 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, God listens to him..9:33 If this man were not from God , he could do nothing."

Now see one of the famous verses in context: I and the father are one. Not even here Jesus says totally directly I am Adonai(Yahweh): Why didn't he say, look I have been you God from day one. I was the one...so Jesus could get the glory. he didn't because he wasn't.

Jn 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 10:31 "I and the father are one." 10:31 The Jews took up stones to stone him. 10:32 Jesus answered, " I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these you stone me?"10:33 The Jews answered him" It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." 10:34 Jesus answered them, "It is not written in your law, you are gods? 10:35 If he called them godsto whom the word of God came 10:36 do you say of whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming, " because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Hear jesus prayer to raise Lazarus. He prays to God, not to himself. He should have said: Look, to prove to you I am your God, let me raise Lazarus to prove my point.

Jn 11:41 ..Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, " Father I thank you that you have heard me. 11:42 I knew that you hear me always, but I have said on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that You did send me."

Here is the the bomb for those who believe Jesus is God himself, seen in a better context:

Jn 14:1 " Let not your hearts be truobled; believe in God, believe also in me.14:2 In my father's house are many rooms...14:8 Phillip said to him, " show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied."14:9 Jesus said to him, " I have been with you so long and you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father..14:10 Do you believe I am in the Father and the Father in me The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority...14:11 Believe that I am in the Father and the father in me.

Wow, it looks like Jesus is God, wait a minute, I still not finished.

Jn 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

Is Jesus saying we are are also God because we are in him? Jesus again clarifies more this:

Jn 16:28 I came from the Father and I have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the father." His disciples said, " Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure!...16:30 by this we believe you came from God"

And to make the situation clearer:

17:1 ...he lifted his eyes to heaven and said, " Father, the hour is come, glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.17:2 Since you have given power over all flesh...17:11 and now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you holy father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

So being one doesn't mean equal to God but have the mind of God when doing things. You know thare were 12 apostles, not one. Yet, they functioned as one. Again , this is repeated:

17:21 That they may be one; even as you Father, are in me, and I in You, that they may also be in us...

This means God wants us to be like him.

And to you, my doubting John, the tip of the iceberg:

Jn 20:17 Jesus said to her, " Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father, but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and you Father, to my God and your God."

You saw how clearly Jesus calls the Father his God? Who is the Thomas here? Not me. Want more?

Jn 14:28... for the Father is greater than I...

As for John 1:1 en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros theon, kai theos en ho logos, notice theos lacks ho to say God (nouns in Greek have articles). It could mean divine, as an adjective. Such is the translation in other Bible passages of theos without ho = the.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.


John is sure to reply, Elpidio; and it will be worth waiting for. You know very little about the Catholic Church where you claim to have been once. You have a sophist's regard for the words of scripture; so you've done a lazy though slick, job of Bible interpretation. The Catholic Church is our ONLY authority in the Christian faith since Pentecost after Christ's ascension to his Father. You look to her for corroboration; you don't presume on your private strengths, such as they are.

You're lazy, because you don't cover all the scriptural evidence. Whatever was here presented to you, you dismiss; because HEY; you have your own agenda! It wouldn't do to admit the word -I Am is the name of Jesus Christ and His Father and the Holy Spirit in Holy Trinity. The ONE God of Israel. You think a trinity is a mind-bender; and being a math teacher, it might be absurd to you. --So, for purposes of your own satisfaction, you'll call Christ a liar. He says ''My God'' and you can't picture the Father's Eternal Son saying that.

--

You're just spiritually blind, that's the whole problem. I know math teachers who accept the reality of the Holy Trinity on faith. If you had an ounce of faith, you could believe too.

You believe in the idea of prophesy. In some zany way, you believe you are clairevoyant. (Which I don't believe at all.)

Jesus Christ more than once made emphatic, clear predictions of His own coming crucifixion death and return to life on the 3rd day. Actually, these are the duly recorded events for which no one has to wait; others he made are yet to come. A very significant one was that He would be with His Church all days, even to the end of the world. The very Church you feel qualified to contradict. In saying that, Jesus gives the understanding that necessarily the Church will be found here on earth even at the end. So far, the Church is full of life.

If Christ said He personally saw Abraham, and He saw the coming future, with His own crucifixion and resurrection, plus the end of the world; is this a sign of His divine Omniscience, in union with His Father? Maybe not to you; you don't care for the orthodox style of biblical interpretation. There's more than enough evidence in the gospels that Christ said He is God.

Chesterton expressed this so: Only three ways can that be seen: Either Jesus Christ was Lying to those who followed Him and died for Him. Or, He was a lunatic, a megalomaniac; Or-- He told the truth. He really is Our Creator.

Please, Elpidio; don't take this as a gratuitous insult, just as a frank personal judgment. --I could easily accept that you are a liar. Or a lunatic, a megalomaniac. And that I am those same things. But that YOU have any truth to teach here? You haven't a chance of telling the truth, until you confess your sins, wake up, and return to the Holy Catholic Church. CHRIST is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. He is God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.


Amazing that you and I are at the same time in frint of a computer communicating at the same time. That would be mathematically impossible in the old days. It's around 3:49 pm on my watch.

It amazes how you believe that a certain image of Jesus someone painted is the true one. yet, his people prohibited image painting, that is why there are no portraits of Jesus, for fear of idolatry.

I answered John the way a catholic would: by book, by context, and in order, because revelation is given in succession. Abraham did not know God's name. Moses did. The prophets told us what God wanted. Jesus came to reveal him to us.Peter and Paul came and suffered to shine light on the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Those visionaries that came after them, came to let us know the spirit of prophecy is alive in the Church. God has not been codified in a written text called the Bible, like Protestants think. God is alive and kicking!!! I can testify to that. Clinton and Bush can testify to that. Long before you knew of me, they heard from me.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.


Actually, a good Catholic would answer by: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium; the Theological method.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 20, 2002.


You are right my dear seminarian. I sent the reply by mistake to the wrong thread.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.

Elpidio:
Old timers like me are not attached to a ''picture'' of Christ someone palmed off on us. The word of God is what we call ''Good News''. God is with us, Emmanuel.

You begin with a non sequitur, & go on to explain nothing in particular about Jesus Christ.

I'm always noticing you leave the subject of Christ, leave the subject of revelation, whatever, and always come back to the subject of You. We have to ward off these sly suggestions of how you KNOW all there is to know. You're the one kept around town by God, to straighten out the kooks who fall for tall stories, etc.,

You're the guy to ask, and there's the whole bit. --Only you aren't. You can snow Clinton and Bush, so you say. But you don't have any credibility within the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.


Eugene, I read it in one of the old threads that dealt with the true picture of Jesus. You believe what you saw is the true picture. By the way, I haven't seen that picture. Is there a website or book?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Elpidio. I join Eugene in praying for your "reversion" to the true Church. He is right to say that a major help to you would be to stop thinking so highly of yourself, your alleged erudition, etc.. I don't think that it is an accident that the first three letters of your e-mail address are "ego."

It is very sad to see that you have gone the way of many of our Hispanic Catholic brethren, falling for some devious arguments of a sect or false religion. In your case, you have fallen into a once-dead heresy called Arianism. Neo-Arianism began to spread again in the 19th century with the creation of the Jehovah's Witnesses (non-Christian) religion.

I believe, Elpidio, that you must be a JW or some similar kind of Arian heretic. I'm surprised that a person intelligent enough to be a schoolteacher (like you) could fall for such foolishness as Arianism. It really flows from a sin of pride, a refusal to submit to the infallible teaching of the Church of your youth.

You stated to Eugene: "I answered John the way a catholic [sic] would: by book, by context, and in order, because revelation is given in succession."

As a Catholic, I would not answer the way you did. A good Catholic should usually defend a doctrine ("X") first by stating: "I believe that X is true, because the holy Catholic Church teaches it, and the Church teaches it because the perfect Lord Jesus (who founded the Church) has revealed it."

Having said something like that first, a Catholic may choose to show how Scripture and/or Apostolic Tradition are in full agreement with the Church teaching being discussed."

Elpidio, the Church has been in existence for almost 2,000 years. Surely you know that. Did you really not know that the Arian heresy arose after the year 315, was repeatedly condemned, and faded away eventually? Did you not realize that, from the time of Jesus up to the time when the 4th-century priest Arius cooked up his mischief, the Church believed (as you do not) that Jesus is divine? Since the apostolic "deposit of faith" included the knowledge that Jesus is divine, you are obviously doing wrong to abandon the Catholic faith and to fall for a 4th-century heresy. How can you throw away such a pearl of great price?

Although I could go through your list of scripture verses, one by one, and show how you have misinterpreted them, I prefer not to do that, because I don't really respect the "proof-text game" that you want to play. I would rather keep this response at a higher level -- namely (1) to remind you that the authority of the Catholic Church expects us (even compels us) to believe what she teaches, because the Church teaches with the voice of Jesus himself ["He who hears you, hears me"] and (2) to remind you that Arianism was a johnny-come-lately invention that is unworthy of your respect today.

(If a good Catholic here asks me to go through Elpidio's verses to show how he is misinterpreting them, I would do that.)

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.


John,
Elpidio got to hasty and said we believed a certain ''picture'' was Jesus. I suspect he's really talking about Our Lady of Guadalupe's portrait. I don't know of a Jesus portrait. Possibly the Shroud of Turin. Makes no difference, I'm not an idolatrer. I stated here before, if Christ returns as a Filipno in appearance, I'll still love Him for eternity.

I repeat my challenge to Elpidio once more. If Christ said He personally saw Abraham, and He saw the coming future, with His own crucifixion and resurrection, plus the end of the world; is this a sign of His divine Omniscience, in union with His Father? IS Chhrist equal to His Father, --God?

He needs to face these things, and what better way than juxtaposing Christ's knowledge of every future event with Elpidio's? He claims to have a gift for telling the future. What about it, Elp???

Yeah, John. For myself, it would be very edifying to see you refute the text-proof Elpidio has misinterpreted.

Let FLY!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.


^

-- ^ (^@^.^), December 22, 2002.

Jmj

Gene, you asked me to "let fly" on Elpidio's "proof-texts. Your wish is my command.

Elpidio has left the Catholic Church, stating that he is no longer a Trinitarian. Instead, he is a radical Arian (and probably a Watchtower man [Jehovah's Witness]), believing that Jesus is merely a man (or some kind of "demi-god"), but not God.

Introducting a group of six verses, Elpidio wrote: "Notice of whom is Jesus speaking:
"John 8:13 The Pharisees then said to him, 'You are bearing witness to yourself, your testimony is not true.'... 8:17 'In your law is written that the testimony of two men is true. I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.' ... 8:31 I speak of what I have seen with my Father ... 8:40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. ... 8:49 Jesus answered, 'I have not a demon; but I honor my father ... 8:50 Yet I do not seek my own glory, there is one who seeks it and he will be the judge."

Frankly, I can't see how these verses add anything to the Arian arsenal. They are fully in keeping with our knowledge [not not "claim," but knowledge] that Jesus is the Father's Son, the second Person of the Trinity. In fact, verse 31 ("seen with my Father") could not have been said by a person with a human nature only. Jesus is a divine Person with a divine nature and a human nature. If we remember the dual nature, we will do well in going through all of Elpidio's verses.

He continues: "Notice the testimony of the man born blind about Jesus:
"Jn 9:1 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, God listens to him ... 9:33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."

Again, no problem. Why would Elpidio quote these? Jesus, in his human nature, worshipped his Father. Jesus, as a "man ... from God" the Father, maintains his divine nature as the Son.

Elpidio goes on"Now see one of the famous verses in context:
'I and the father are one.' Not even here Jesus says totally directly, 'I am Adonai (Yahweh):' Why didn't he say, look I have been your God from day one. I was the one ... so Jesus could get the glory. He didn't because he wasn't."
Why didn't he? Why should he add those words? By saying that is one with the Father, he has already said all that is necessary. Why does Elpidio expect him to be seeking "glory"? It is so obvious that such was not his mission.

Elpidio continues:
"Jn 10:29 'My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.' 10:31 'I and the father are one.' 10:31 The Jews took up stones to stone him. 10:32 Jesus answered, 'I have shown you many good works from my Father; for which of these you stone me?' 10:33 The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.' 10:34 Jesus answered them, "It is not written in your law, you are gods? 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came 10:36 do you say of whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'" [Elpidio improperly omits verses 37-38: "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."]

I can't read Elpidio's mind, but I suspect that he is taking the final verses to be a denial of his divinity by Jesus himself. That, naturally, is a misinterpretation. Jesus has just said the opposite in verse 31, and the Jews understand him well (expressed in verse 33): he claims to be both man and God. In verse 34, he reminds them that the books of Psalms and Exodus refer to judges as "gods" (meaning God's representatives in the determination of fate). Then in verses 35-38, he says that, if mere judges have the title, 'gods,' how can it be blasphemy if he calls himself 'Son of God,' considering the testimony that he and his miraculous works have given."

Elpidio goes on:
"Hear jesus prayer to raise Lazarus. He prays to God, not to himself. He should have said: Look, to prove to you I am your God, let me raise Lazarus to prove my point. Jn 11:41 ..Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, 'Father I thank you that you have heard me. 11:42 I knew that you hear me always, but I have said on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that You did send me.'"

Again, he was not here to glorify himself (in his human nature), but his Father (God). The fact that he had a divine nature did not mean that he HAD to seek glory for himself. He was a Jew, seeking to glorify the Father. The fact that he did not say, "Let me raise Lazarus to prove my point," does not mean that he could not have raised Lazarus with his own power.

Next, Elpidio gets much too entusiastic, saying:"
"Here is the bomb for those who believe Jesus is God himself, seen in a better context: Jn 14:1 'Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. 14:2 In my father's house are many rooms' ... 14:8 Phillip said to him, 'Show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.' 14:9 Jesus said to him, 'I have been with you so long and you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father ... 14:10 Do you believe I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority ... 14:11 Believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me.'
"Wow, it looks like Jesus is God; wait a minute, I am still not finished.
"Jn 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.'"
"Is Jesus saying we are are also God because we are in him? Jesus again clarifies more this: Jn 16:28 'I came from the Father and I have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the father.' His disciples said, 'Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure! ... 16:30 by this we believe you came from God'"

Again, misinterpretation causes Elpidian heresy. Note what Jesus says in verse 9 to St. Philip. He could not say this unless he shared the divine nature with the Father. Verses 10 and 11 reiterate the unity that the divine Persons have. Elpidio jumps ahead to look at verse 20 as a supposed refutation. What is "that day"? The coming of the Holy Spirit (verses 16-17), when the Apostles would better understand the unity of Father and Son, and would experience the greatest possible degree of unity with Jesus, but without becoming divine themselves. (Elpidio's verses from Chapter 16 prove nothing concerning Jesus's human and divine natures.)

Elpidio keeps trying: "And to make the situation clearer:
"17:1 ...he lifted his eyes to heaven and said, 'Father, the hour is come, glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 17:2 Since you have given power over all flesh. 17:11 and now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.'
"So being one doesn't mean equal to God but have the mind of God when doing things."

No, it means either, depending on the verse quoted. It doesn't have to mean just one thing throughout the whole gospel of St. John.

"You know thare were 12 apostles, not one. Yet, they functioned as one. Again, this is repeated: "17:21 That they may be one; even as you Father, are in me, and I in You, that they may also be in us...
"This means God wants us to be like him.

No, it means that he wants us to believe and act in perfect accordance with his will. We can know that will through the teachings of the Catholic Church alone.

Next, Elpidio says:
"And to you, my doubting John [Gecik], the tip of the iceberg:
"Jn 20:17 Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father, but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and you Father, to my God and your God."
You saw how clearly Jesus calls the Father his God? Who is the [St.] Thomas here? Not me.

Again, this is no problem in Catholic belief. The Father is indeed Jesus's God. Jesus is speaking in his human nature about his Father's divine nature.

Elpidio then says:
" Want more?
"Jn 14:28... for the Father is greater than I..."

By now, you should realize that, in their divine nature, they are equal ... but the human nature of Jesus (of which he was speaking here) is created and is of a lesser than the divine nature of the Father.

Elpidio concludes by convince us that he is familiar with Greek:
"As for John 1:1 -- 'en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros theon, kai theos en ho logos ...'
"notice 'theos' lacks 'ho' to say 'God' (nouns in Greek have articles). It ['theos'] could mean divine, as an adjective. Such is the translation in other Bible passages of 'theos' without 'ho' = the."

That's a bit strange. Elpidio wanted to hurt us, but didn't by saying that "kai theos en ho logos" means "and divine was the Word." If the Word was divine, he was God. Amen, Elpidio.

Actually, JWs usually claim that those Greek words should be translated as "... and the Word was a god" (because the article "ho" is absent before "theos"). Maybe Elpidio is rusty. Let's pretend he made the claim like a good JW. In that case, I would quote as follows from apologist John DiMascio:

"[Claiming that the Greek means "and the Word was a god"] is a favorite ploy of the Jehovah Witnesses. The fact is that their founder knew enough Greek to be dangerous. It is true that there is no indefinite article in Greek. But the fact is that Greek grammar does not require a definite article when we are dealing with two nouns of the nominative case when they are linked by any form of the verb "to be" Usually the second of the two nouns receives the article. The Greek reads: 'kai Theos en ho Logos' or [literally] 'and God was the Word.'

"[In Greek] the noun declensions determine whether a word is the subject or an object in a sentence, rather than the order of the words in a sentence. The order is immaterial. In this case one definite article was needed. The sentence in Greek could be scrambled in a any order such as: 'kai Logos en ho Theos' = 'and Word was the God' or 'kai ho Theos en Logos' = 'and the Word was God' or any other combination thereof. The reader would have understood the meaning . Usually the article ["ho"] is dropped before the noun which comes before the verb [Theos, in this case]!

"Having said that, the early Church outside of Jerusalem spoke and read Greek. The documents of councils of Nicea in 325 AD were all written in Greek. This was the Council which defined the Trinity and excommunicated Arius. Arius, like the JW's, believed and taught that Jesus was not eternal God, but a created demi-god. All these people understood Greek, they would not have gotten this part wrong. The Greek Orthodox still read the same text in Greek today. None of them understands it to mean, 'the Word was a God.'" [End of quotation from DiMascio]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.


Elpidio goes on--"Now see one of the famous verses in context: 'I and the Father are one.' Not even here Jesus says totally directly, 'I am Adonai (Yahweh):' Why didn't he say, look I have been your God from day one.--

---------

Oh; but He just DID! Ha!
Next, Elpidio says: "And to you, my doubting John [Gecik], the tip of the iceberg: "Jn 20:17 Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father, but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." You saw how clearly Jesus calls the Father his God? Who is the St. Thomas here?

YES, it's Elpidio who doubts, even with all the scriptural evidence. Thomas clearly says: ''My Lord and my God.'' That isn't proof to Elpidio, He wants Magdalene to say that as well.

But now, think: Would Elpidio have said it; even after Christ rose from the dead?

He expects the gospel to sound out only what he wishes to believe. Poor sorry soul. For this he read the Bible in Greek??? Haha!

John's reply: --Again, this is no problem in Catholic belief. The Father is indeed Jesus's God. Jesus is speaking in his human nature about his Father's divine nature. --John, you've said it all.

Elpidio then says: " Want more?" He means more junk exegesis --
"Jn 14:28... for the Father is greater than I..."

Elpidio; that isn't a denial of His own divinity. The Father begets, ''generates'', His Son. --His Son, the perfect image of the Father-- can be No LESS perfect than His Father. Meaning just as Divine, and a co-equal. God can't beget less than what He Himself is, from eternity. He created the universe; but His Son is co-eternal with Him, as the Bible teaches very well.

Thanks for an expert interpretation, John.

READ IT, ELPIDIO; FOR THE SALVATION OF YOUR SOUL.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 23, 2002.


You're welcome, Gene. It was my pleasure (although the "pleasure" is tempered by knowing that Elpidio is not yet back in the fold).

I want to fix a mistake that I just noticed in what I quoted from J. DiMascio. He wrote: "The sentence in Greek could be scrambled in a any order such as: 'kai Logos en ho Theos' = 'and Word was the God' or 'kai ho Theos en Logos' = 'and the Word was God' or any other combination thereof."
The second Greek phrase (for a literal reading as "= 'and the Word was God'") should have been "kai ho Logos en Theos."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.


John,

Great job! Sometimes It seems as though you're a computer. You're such a peaceful learned man about Catholicism. Have a Merry Christmas.

Ty

-- Ty (.@msft.com), December 23, 2002.


You are too kind, Ty! Some days, I am not so "peaceful," but I hope that the newborn Prince of "Peace" can help me out in that area! I'm not so sure, though, that I want to be a "computer," because I need to have some friendly human feelings to go along with my facts. Please pray for me to do better. Thanks, and a Merry Christmas to you too.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

First of all, I would like to thank all of the people for the interesting debating. I'm always fond of reading (or listening to) a discussion on the Christian Faith.

Now, I'm going to be honest here, I was raised in a Protestant home, and most of my knowledge (or lack there of, depending on who you are talking) comes from a Protestant point of view. I also seem to substantially younger then the majority of you. I am a First year Student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. I am very active with the Campus Crusades for Christ.

Know then, I've been studying whether or not Jesus had siblings or not. Both arguements, the Protestant and the Catholic, are very persuasive and are both legit. So, here I go, trying to place my opinion.

"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the Name Jesus." Matthew 1:24-25.

Now then, "Joseph...took Mary home as his wife." According to the Old Testiment (Jewish tradition), a man and woman became husband and wife through an act, the act of intercourse. But, you must read the next line to give more context. "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." He took her as a wife, yes. He didn't have union with her until she bore Jesus. So, yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a Virgin. Joseph then had union with her. Basically, they had sex. It was the final act of Marriage that bounded them together. According to Jewish Tradition (since Catholics are so big on tradition), Marriage could only be completed through sex. Joseph and Mary could never be officially Married unless they had sex. So, even if Jesus didn't have brothers, it is official that Mary had sex with Joseph in order to complete the process of Marriage.

"'Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?'" Matthew 13:55-56

Now then, we have references to Father (step/foster), Mother (biological), Brothers and Sisters (cousins? as Catholics like to say it is). Now, if you were to actually take this passage in context (grammatically), the Brothers and Sisters would be directly related, not cousins. Now, I'll give to you that they could be step- siblings. That is a valid arguement, but not cousins. Logically, and grammatically, it isn't valid.

Next is the Messianic Psalm, Psalm 69. Jesus qoutes two of the verses, 4 and 9. That is how we have been able to distinguish it is a messianic Psalm. It reads as follows:

"Those who hate me without cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. O God, it is thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of Hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me." Psalms 69:4-9

Now, everything in between the two verses that Jesus qoutes are some very interesting stuff. Especially at the end, in verse 8. It reades, "I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother's sons." You can try to say that the previous refers to Kinsmen, but the latter is specific in it saying "my mother's sons." The writer of this Messianic Psalm wanted us to be very certain that Jesus had Brothers.

Last but not least is the logic behind the theory of the Virgin Mary and the Messiah. Mary was a Virgin, free of sexual intercourse at the birth of Jesus, everyone who claims to be Catholic and Protestant agrees on this. The Messiah, according to prophesy, was (and is) the only man (in reference to humans) to be born, live a life, and die without sin. Now, if Mary was sinless (born, lived a life, and die), she would have been our Messiah, and we wouldn't have needed Jesus. The theory that she had to be sinless to bear the sinless messiah is also faulty, because that would've meant that her mother would have had to been sinless, and her mom before her, etc. It becomes an endless cycle dating back to Adam and Eve, and as we all have excepted, both Adam and Eve sinned against God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

Now, as I said before, I am a protestant, and these are what I have learned in my little bit of 19 years of my life. I was raised in my family to think Logically and ask questions critically. I have, and these are the conclusions I have come to.

One last thing, Christianity is a living faith. Jesus came to earth warning against legalism and tradition. He denied the Pharisees because of there parctice of tradition and legalism. So, alas, follow the teachings of Christ. He is very clear in what he means.

Thank you for your time. I hope I haven't offended anyone. Please feel free to respond. I like to hear what people have to say. Plus, it adds to my knowledge, because I try to be open minded about things and see both sides of the story. Thank you again, and God Bless to all who read this, and even those who don't.

Your brother in Christ, Ethan

-- Ethan Dotson (edotson@calpoly.edu), April 29, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, Ethan.

I don't know if, by using a search engine, you stumbled across this thread or if you entered it via a different route. In case the first was true, you may not be aware that you are visiting a Catholic discussion forum. Here is the home page. If you scroll down to the bottom 1/3, you'll find the archives of thousands of threads going back more than five years.

If you were to browse in the archives at great length, you'd find that the arguments you have raised have come up at least ten to twenty times in the past. You are raising objections and theories that are contrary to the Catholic teaching that has been part of Christianity for almost 2,000 years. Every idea that you have expressed above has been refuted, time and again, at this forum. It's a never-ending source of sorrow to me that non-Catholics like yourself are taught these false ideas about Mary, the Mother of God. Besides being led down the wrong path by people you trust (perhaps pastors, friends, parents) on the subject of Mary's virginity, you also have been wrongly led to believe that you can always or usually come to correct conclusions by your own private, undirected study of Bible verses. Your message, though, shows that you have come up with incorrect private interpretations of every verse. This may happen because you come to the texts with the predetermined conclusion that Mary gave birth to other children. Then you "mold" the Bible's words to fit your conclusion, and you do not avoid the pitfall of going beyond what the words actually say.

Ethan, incorrect ideas like yours go back at least to the time of St. Jerome (in the late 300s A.D.) when that great Catholic translater of the Bible had to tell a heretic that he was misinterpreting God's word in arriving at the kinds of conclusions that you have proposed in this thread. We Catholics have always known, via the spoken Word of God, that Jesus was Mary's only child. This truth was handed down, by word of mouth, from the Apostles to succeeding generations. However, even open-minded non-Catholics who lack this inerrant source of divine revelation can "reason" to a knowledge of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Ethan, besides the old forum threads that you can find on this topic in the archives (like this one [and make sure you take ALL the links therein] and this one), I want to recommend a couple of Internet essays for you to read:
Link #1 (Brethren of the Lord)
Link #2 (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al., knew that Mary died a Virgin")

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ