What are the thoughts of those present on this article and its subject?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/25/jesus.box.ap/index.html

Logical One

-- Logical One (logical1@logical1.net), November 25, 2003

Answers

One thing I noticed in the article is the inscription on the box speaks of the "brother" of Jesus. I know that in those times, even taking translation of the Scripture into account, the terms "brother" and "sister" were used to express cousins and other family members (and possibly close friends, as they are used today?) and not just siblings.

I can just imagine how some sects might use the inscription on the box to "prove" that Mary was not always virginal.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is settled. The world's leading experts on the archaeology of the area have declared the box a genuine artifact, and the inscription a forgery. Unless other archeological experts challenge those findings, I see no reason to doubt them. The fact that a group of fundamentalist bible scholars would prefer that the inscription was real, since it would support some of their private interpretations of the Bible, doesn't really impress me.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 25, 2003.

That's exactly the point of the article. Other archaeological experts are challenging what was previously thought of the box and the debate over whether the inscription is forged or not it on again. As a side note, rather the inscription is literal or not is irrelevant to the fact that they only chose to put on that the person buried was the brother to Jesus. What other documented evidence is there of the family tree for Jesus as far as cousins, uncles, aunts, etc? IE, what are the chances that something like this could come up again in the future where another box is found or some other artifact is found that purports to be from someone that is related more directly (cousin, uncle, aunt, etc) to Jesus?

Logical One

-- Logical One (logical1@logical1.net), November 25, 2003.

I was intrigued about the ossuary several months ago.

The most compelling issue is the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

When in doubt, go to the most knowledgable contemporary source: the best in this case is St. Jerome, circa 383AD. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 25, 2003.

Faith, Please read this linked article: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.3/mayjune_story2.html

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: “For one thing.., there is a word for cousin in Greek, and it is anepsios. It was a common practic for Hebrew writers to refer to all relatives as sisters and brothers..but this is never practiced in the New Testament.”

So, you are saying that the Greek word “anepsios” was not used in the New Testament. Let me ask you, Faith, how many years before Christ was born were the books of the Old Testament written by those Hebrew writers you mention? And, Greek was a living language through all those many, many years, was it not? So, are you saying that in all those years between the writing of the Old Testament and the writing of the New Testament, the spelling, grammatical usages, slang or common usages, etc, of the word “anepsios” did not change one single bit? Considering Greek was a living language through all that time, your assumption that the grammatical and common usage of that one word did not change, linguistically speaking, is ridiculous.

Also, please list for me all of the other Greek words which existed back then, both at the time the Old Testament was written, and the time the New Testament was written, which had meanings referring to brothers, sisters, cousins, relatives, other family members, close friends, believers of the same religion or creed, residents of the same locale, etc, and also list all their possible translations and grammatical and common usages.

You can’t, I know.

My point being, what makes you think that one word “anepsios” has anything to do with this issue?

Faith wrote: “I also note that these "brethren" are always mentioned in the company of Mary--indicating that they are in her care.”

No, Faith, it indicates that Mary and the “brethren” traveled together, following Jesus. Where is your Greek word for “in the company of,” or a quote anywhere in the Bible stating that Mary gave birth to anyone but Jesus?

Faith wrote: “The Bible teaches that Mary was a virgin until the time that Jesus was born. Subsequently she had a number of other children by Joseph, her husband. Joseph "knew her not until" Christ was born (Matt. 1:25)”

The entire verse is “And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

OK, Faith, now here’s for using your own argument against you *big sweet grin*

This expression Matthew used, “knew her not till,” was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews. They denoted by the word “till” or “until” only what is done, without any regard to the future. Examples: Genesis 8,6,and 7 “Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth.” Meaning, did not return any more. Also, Isaias 46. 4, God says: “I am till you grow old.” Does this mean that God would cease to exist when “you grow old”? Also, in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, “And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace.” I.e., not one was killed before or after they had returned. God said to his divine Son: “Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool.” Faith, does that mean that Christ will no longer sit on His Father’s right hand after His enemies have been subdued? So, that Joseph “knew her not till” does not mean that they later had sex. Using your own argument concerning the word for “cousin”, Faith, “knew her not till” means he never knew her: they never had sex.

Also, the term “only begotten son”, was synonymous with “firstborn”, and “first begotten” because according to the old law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God: “Sanctify unto me every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel,” Ex. 13.2. So St. Matthew calling Jesus Mary’s “firstborn” doesn’t mean she had others.

So, Faith, you have a choice: either you can agree with my argument regarding the usage of “anepsios” and reject my analysis of the “till” issue; OR, you can reject my argument regarding “anepsios” which means you must believe my analysis of “till”.

On top of all that, I ask you to prove that Mary did have other children, or that she and Joseph had sex. Give me one verse in the Bible which states that either of those things happened.

You can't, I know. But please, try.

So, either you have no argument against the fact that Mary was always virginal, or you must actively believe in her perpetual virginity.

Which do you choose?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

Greetings: Jesus said you search the scriptures for in them you think you have life, butthe point to me. The scriptures point to Jesus. not to Mary, as Mary was a human born into iniquity as all others, thus she said I rejoice in God my saviour, who needs a saviour but a sinner. Mary the mother of Jesus and not of God as God has no mother, ws chosen by the Lord to birth into the world Jesus Christ according to the flesh, she in here limited human understanding was ignorant to who Jesus was, as Gods word reveals Mary didn't understand what Jesus was saying on many occasions. Jesus said my brothers and sisters are they who hear the wod of God and obey it, thus the following scriptures reveal that Jesus had earthly brothers born from Marys womb. How can these be his brothers in spirit if verse 5 says they didn't believe in him, thus not obeying the word of God. All who know God in Jesus name know that James and Jude were brothers according to the flesh of Jesus, as God by His Spirit reveals the truth. The lost and blind shall defend a false mary of tradition until death and here depart from me I never knew you. 3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. 4 For no man doeth any thing in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. [When we consider how Jesus had withdrawn into the regions of Tyre, Sidon, Decapolis, and Cæsarea Philippi, and with what assiduity he had avoided crowds and concealed miracles, these words become very plain. The twelve had been instructed sufficiently to confess his Messiahship, but thousands of his disciples had not seen a miracle in six months. To his brothers such secrecy seemed foolish on the part of one who was ostensibly seeking to be known. They were not disposed to credit the miracles of Jesus, but insisted that if he could work them he ought to do so openly.] 5 For even his brethren did not believe on him. [This verse explodes the idea that the parties known in the New Testament as our Lord's brothers were the sons of Alphæus and cousins to Jesus. The sons of Alphæus had long since been numbered among the apostles, while our Lord's brothers were still unbelievers. As to his brothers, see on Mr 3:18 and Mr 6:3.] 6 Jesus therefore saith unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready. [Jesus is answering a request that he manifest himself. The great manifestation of his cross and resurrection could not properly take place before the Passover, which was still six months distant. But his brothers, having no message and no manifestation, could show themselves at Jerusalem any time.] 7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its works are evil. [The world can [440] not hate you because you are in mind and heart a part of it, and it can not hate itself. It hates those who are not of it, and who rebuke its sins and oppose its ways.] 8 Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled. 9 And having said these things unto them, he abode still in Galilee. [He did go to the feast, but he did not go up to manifest himself, as his brothers asked, and hence, in the sense in which they made the request, he did not go up. Six months later, at the Passover, he manifested himself by the triumphal entry somewhat as his brothers wished.

-- Jesus is the saviour and no one else (truthisfreedpdom316@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

Uh, hello, whoever-you-are, but did you even read my last post? I think not. I suggest you go back and read it.

Mary's conception was Immaculate. She never had the stain of sin on her soul -- not original sin, and not any other.

The angel said, "Hail, full of grace!" How could she be full of grace if her soul was stained with sin?

Hail, Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

Greetings: Original sin there is no such word in Gods word. All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory, all every person born into the world. So your original sin statement is unholy and not of Gods word. I mean God is holy and no others, Jesus is glory to the Father and Jesus is the reason why Mary was full of grace, before Jesus was in her womb she was not full of grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[5] ,[6] who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Jesus is he who God appointed to make Himself known, so your mary is another mary and not of the Lord.

-- Jesus alone never sinned (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

Faith wrote: “to blow your theory sky high...”

Let’s see how high.

“Mark 6:3 Is not this [referring to Jesus] the carpenter, the son of Mary, the BROTHER of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not HIS SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him.”

Faith, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Where do you think Christians got that saying from? The Bible, of course: verses just like Mark 6:3.

“John's gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms (69:8-9)--in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.”

Just like you and I have brothers and sisters in Christ, who are not our biological siblings. Ever pass someone on the street and hear them say, “What’s goin’ on, bro?”

“John 2:17, And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. Psalms 69:8-9 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER'S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.”

The narrator there is not Christ. Even if it were, Christ gave Mary to us as our spiritual Mother while He was dying on the Cross. Therefore, we are all Mary’s children. You are Mary’s child. I am Mary’s child. Did she give birth to us? Nooooo . . .

“John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.”

We are all God’s children, the Virgin Mary’s spiritual children, and we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and of Christ. But did Mary give birth to you or to me? Duh. And, though you believe differently than I do, Faith, in many ways you and I are sisters.

“Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.”

Ever hear someone say, “This goes out to my boy” or “This goes out to my girl” or “Can I get an Amen, brothers and sisters?!” Another duh.

“The Catholic religion says the word translated "brother" should be "cousin". Wrong again. The word "cousin" is clearly found in the scripture and it means--you've got it--cousin!”

Uh, the Church says that “cousin” is one of the many possibilities. Don’t quote the Church on something you don’t even know the facts about.

“Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.”

So are you saying that Elisabeth was Mary’s biological cousin but that Elisabeth’s son John was Jesus’s biological brother? Silly me, I just don’t see how that could be . . .

But let’s see, that does not blow anything sky high except your weak attempt at discrediting the Catholic Church. The Blessed Virgin Mary is just that: the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Got any more personal interpretations of Holy Scripture for me?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

Truthisfreedom316 wrote: “Original sin there is no such word in Gods word.”

Yes, there is. You just don’t believe the Bible, so you don’t count Sacred Tradition as God’s word.

“All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory, all every person born into the world.”

Wrong again. You just don’t read the Bible, do you? “Hail, full of grace!” Mary couldn’t be full of grace if she had even one small, tiny stain of sin on her soul.

“So your original sin statement is unholy and not of Gods word.”

So what do you call the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? That was the Original Sin. Of course Original Sin is unholy. My statement about it is not. And, yes, my statement is of God’s word, because it is from Sacred Tradition, which is God’s word, but which you don’t acknowledge because you don’t believe what it says in the Bible.

“I mean God is holy and no others, Jesus is glory to the Father and Jesus is the reason why Mary was full of grace, before Jesus was in her womb she was not full of grace.”

What a load of bat droppings. Mary had not conceived Jesus until she said “Let it be done unto me according to thy word.” She had to give her assent first. I can’t believe you don’t know this!! The Angel Gabriel said “Hail, full of grace!” before the Blessed Virgin Mary said “Let it be done unto me according to thy word.” So, yes, unless the Angel was lying, Mary was sinless and spotless before she conceived Christ.

“17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[5] ,[6] who is at the Father's side, has made him known.”

You didn’t say where these quotes are from. Also, the law of Moses was obviously broken when Jesus’s time to enter the world came near, as were the laws of biology and physics. How exactly could the Virgin Mary be a pregnant virgin except by God breaking His own laws? Same reason the Virgin was holy, spotless, and totally pure of all stain of sin from the moment of her Conception. God broke His own rules. Like the old saw goes, “The exception proves the rule!”

“Jesus is he who God appointed to make Himself known, so your mary is another mary and not of the Lord.”

Don’t you dare insult the Virgin Mary, or I can promise you, you will have the wrath of Christ Himself upon you. Ever go up to a strong, powerful man and insult his mother to his face? No? Not that stupid, are you? Well, don’t do it to Christ! You won’t like the consequences!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

"That's exactly the point of the article. Other archaeological experts are challenging what was previously thought of the box and the debate over whether the inscription is forged or not it on again."

A: The article does not say that at all. The "American Academy of Religion" and the "Society of Biblical Literature" are NOT archaeological experts. In fact, archaeology is not even their normal area of interest.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 25, 2003.

"Adelphos means brothers/sisters, and it meant brother and sisters in the New Testament"

A: Yes Faith, adelfoi does indeed mean "brothers". It appears in many places in the New Testament. For example, in 1 Cor 15:6 ...

"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren [adelphoi] at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

Mary and Joseph must have been pretty busy if all these "brothers of the Lord" were their biological children.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 25, 2003.

G'night, all, will be back tomorrow.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

And another link of explanation: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_brothers.html

-- Logical One (logical@logical1.net), November 25, 2003.

When Jesus is hanging on the cross, His Holy Mother Mary and the holy apostle Saint John are standing together at the foot of the cross. No other person but Mary Magdalene is with them.

Our Saviour before His death said: "Woman, behold thy son''-- speaking of John (Who represents the Church). To His apostle he said, ''Son, behold thy mother.'' She is therefore the mother of His Church.

Thereafter Mary was taken into the house of the apostle John, who loved her and gave her his protection as a loyal son till the end of her earthly life. --Where are the sons and daughters she had subsequent to the birth of her firstborn, Jesus?

Why is Jesus concerned at all about Mary's coming bereavement and her earthly life after He is gone? Didn't she have sons and daughters to take her in? Would any devout Jew allow his/her mother to go to live with a man not of her house? It would have scandalised them!

No other family was there. She only had Him, Jesus, the Son of God. And she was a widow. So, He entrusted His Virgin Mother to the care of His holy apostle John, the apostle He loved! Not a brother! Not a kinsman at all! Mary had but ONE son; Jesus Christ!

No one but Jesus Christ was ever called the son of Mary. No other man or woman is ever referred to in Holy Writ as a son of Mary; except HIM. She is Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God. She is our mother, because Jesus appointed her so. This is the revealed truth; whether or not unbelievers accept it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 25, 2003.

Let me assure you: Mary's only family was there. Her only Son, JESUS; and He sent her to be the mother of John the apostle. No other ''brethren'' were her children. You are just obstinately anti-Catholic or you wouldn't deny the obvious. Yours is the loss, not mine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 25, 2003.

Logical One's good page about the "brothers" of Jesus. Please visit.

-- (here@to.help), November 26, 2003.

truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com and Faith,

Your faith is based on Sola Scriptura - Catholicsm is based on Tradition from Christ and the Apostles. The Bible comes from this source.

This debate will go on for ever because your angle is based soley on the Bible whereas ours is based on more. As you know Catholics revere the Holy Scriptures, so it's not a case of neglecting or diminishing the Bible.

You are trying to prove Mary is not important/significant, she was just like you and me from a biblical departure point, however, we know that from the time of Christ and certainly the early Christian Fathers, revered Mary as Mother of God. She had a special place in their hearts.

From a purely objective stand point - I do not understand Sola Scriptura. I have not yet met a reformed Christian who can justify it.

This discussion on Mary will not be resolved on the basis of the Bible only, it cannot, it does not hold all Christian truth. Most importantly, it doesn't claim to do so.

God Bless

Francois

-- Franc (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 27, 2003.

"Therefore, everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures".

A: If "everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures", then the statement that "everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures" should appear somewhere in the Holy Scriptures. It doesn't! Instead the Holy Scriptures tell us to look to the Church for truth. Therefore the theory that "everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures" is simply an unscriptural tradition of men. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the scriptures date back to the Apostles, while the notion that "everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures" only dates back a few hundred years. It is further demonstrated by the fact that those who attempt to follow the theory that "everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures" have a history of ongoing division, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos which is directly the opposite of what the Scriptures teach us about Christ's plan for the Church. Even if it were true that "everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures", it would NOT be true that "everything that we need to know is contained within our personal interpretations of the Holy Scriptures". Protestantism proves this over and over again as their manmade tradition continues to self-destruct, with more denominations forming and previous denominations disappearing every month.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 29, 2003.

Faith is back with her self-pronounced evangelism. [Tradition] would ''put aside'' the Word of God in favor of the ideas of men!''

But the Catholic Church has not put aside the Word of God. It was ever by the Word of God she brought souls to salvation since the birth of Christianity (Catholic).

In fact, she asserts the ideas of men. We all know who these men are, taking advantage of foolish souls like Faith. Luther, Henry VIII, John Calvin, and a slew of other pretend evangelists. They sell her the notion that all she needs is the Bible. Her interpretations of the scriptures are anti-apostolic and anti-Gospel, and she doesn't even realise it. She still hasn't seen that the devil quotes scripture. She still hasn't provided proof from that very Bible which shows all Christians should depend upon is the Bible. I wanted her to bring us the text-proof. She refused.

No wonder; there isn't any. Our Lord never stated ''Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Bible.'' Nor did He say, ''Whoever would be my disciple, let him pick up the Bible and follow me.''

If Jesus had ever meant these things for His Church, the words would be written in the Bible. Faith would have the proof; instead of mere lip service to Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Paul says ----- If 'everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures,' then the statement that 'everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures' should appear somewhere in the Holy Scriptures. It doesn't!

Faith says ----- The Bible does declare itself to be completely sufficient. You can find it all over the place. Here is just one: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30 This makes it quite clear that what is necessary unto our salvation is recorded for us ... because ultimately, believing that Christ is the Son of God, who came and died for us, in our place -- is the important gospel message that saves. Believing is the key to eternal life. It's not complicated.

Paul is thereby proved right. When given a chance, Faith provided no verse that says, "Everything that we need to know is contained within the Holy Scriptures." Faith merely provided a verse that Faith then MISINTERPRETED as meaning what Paul asked for.

The Bible teaches us many things, but it does not tell us what its words mean. We need the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church, to either (1) tell us specifically what certain verses mean or (2) more often, to give us the overall doctrinal framework/parameters within which we can accurately interpret verses on our own.

Faith has no teaching Church as a guide, so Pope Faith I partly or fully botches interpretations of verses left and right -- including John 20:30. Faith says about this verse ----- Believing is the key to eternal life. It's not complicated. But the Bible tells us elsewhere that even the devil "believes" that Jesus is the Son of God. Mere "believing" is not enough. One must act upon that belief. But how must we act in order to please God? The Bible tells us some things that we must do and avoid doing, but not all. We need the Church to get all of Jesus's teaching about this.

-- (here@to.help), November 29, 2003.

That explains why you don't believe the many revelations we have from Jesus Christ. You don't believe in Jesus at all, but in your own stylized image of Him. You were sold a bill of goods by self-ordained men.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

I can read, Faith. You misinterpret the verse as usual. John is speaking strictly about the book at hand, Revelations, or the Apocalypse; not the bible altogether.

Even so, the Church hasn't added or taken out any part of the Holy Bible. She has preserved everything with great love & devotion. As you were told already many times, your ''reformers'' deleted the inspired Word of God. They did it because they couldn't permit any book that supported Catholic doctrine. They PURGED the Holy Scriptures for their own agenda. Your masters!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

of course eugene,

John is speaking strictly about the book at hand, Revelations, or the Apocalypse; not the bible altogether.

if john werent referring solely to the book of revelations all the protestants would be damned for having removed SEVEN WHOLE BOOKS from the bible.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 29, 2003.

funny, you put a contradiction into the bible with your (MIS) interpretations. doesnt timothy tell us that the bible is fit for teaching, rebuking, and CORRECTION??? now, how can the bible be fit for correction if to change anything even slightly damns the editor?

in that case, everyone who has printed a copy of a bible which isnt in the native hebrew aramaic and greek is in a state of mortal sin, and of course, went to hell. yep, even martin luther, even guttenberg, who brought the bible to the masses... one and all, because they CHANGED the bible (gasp*).

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 01, 2003.

So Faith,

Just what does your private interpretation of this passage lead you to guess that it refers to? I'm hoping you are guessing that it refers to the Catholic Church. Even though such an interpretation would be utterly ludicrous, at least it would amount to an admission on your part that the Catholic Church existed in apostolic times. That would be one small step in the direction of truth for you. But more likely you think that the meaning of this passage can be found in "A Woman Rides the Beast", or other equally diabolical works of fiction. Sad. So sad.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

''I think,''
''I think,''
''personally, I think;''
''I don't necessarily think,''

Here is the sophist educating Catholics. Every other sentence boils down to an ''I think''. She's her own Pope, and nothing will convince here except what she thinks. Even without a Bible, Faith would bury you under a thousand ''I thinks''. The Bible can't stop her. God can't stop her, and that's a fact. Does it matter, whether God thinks? Whether we think? Not to ''faith'', the Ever Ready Bunny! Ha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2003.

"I think that that passage refers to an apostate religion that has to necessarily have a connection with Jesus Christ, whether that connection is legitamate or not."

A: Curious then that there is absolutely no historical record of ANY Christian Church but the Holy Catholic Church for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. Do you "think" this was a "secret" apostate church, which managed to exist without leaving the slightest evidence of itself? How do you "think" they managed to be apostate without producing a single apostate writing? And where are the writings of the early True Church, condemning this "apostate church"?? You say "I think", but apparently you didn't think about this much at all. You just believed what you read in some cheap paperback anti-Catholic work written by someone who likewise didn't give it much intelligent thought.

"I think that all Christian religions can claim their roots back to the apostles. Whether or not they are correct is yet to be seen."

A: Well, I KNOW that the Catholic Church can trace its roots directly to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ Himself. The Anglican and Lutheran Churches can trace their roots back to the Catholic Church. And all of the other conflicting manmade denominations can trace their roots back to either Anglicanism or, in most cases, Lutheranism. So, if that's your idea of tracing your roots back to the Apostles then I guess there is an indirect historical root there. The problem is, both Henry VIII and Luther formally severed that root, so that the churches which were spawned by their respective rebellions no longer draw the spiritual life of sacramental grace which Christ provides to His own true Church. His Church has everything He gave it originally. Your tradition has what your human founders gave you, including - luckily for you - a certain measure of Catholic truth which they took with them when they abandoned the Church of God.

"Personally I don't think any one worldly institution whether Catholic or Protestant or otherwise, can accurately claim to be the One True Church anymore..."

A: Then I'll just leave it to you to figure out what Jesus meant when He told the one true Church He founded, "I will be with you until the end of time". Personally I think you should do far less thinking, and far more studying.

"Division in this fallen world was almost immediate."

A: Curious then that there is absolutely no historical record of ANY Christian Church but the Holy Catholic Church for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. Etc., etc.

"But Jesus secured a way for His true church to stand. We are His Body, we are a spiritual church....with a very real and physical presence."

A: Who is "we"? Your little self-defined denomination? Or everyone in the world who holds any beliefs about Jesus Christ at all?? Is that what you mean by "the Body of Christ"? The Bible tells us that "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand." (Matthew 12:25) If Protestantism is not "a house divided against itself", I don't know what possibly could be! This is your idea of "a secure way for His true church to stand"?? Open your eyes! Your tradition is crumbling around you even as you read this. Tomorrow there will be more denominations than there are today! Jesus foretold this tragic situation when He said "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires." (2 Timothy 4:3) This ungodly process will continue until the entire manmade tradition collapses into rubble, and men have nowhere to turn except the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of truth! (1 Tim 3:15)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

im wondering about something.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 01, 2003.