Mary was Faithful to God

[Leo Volont]

Mary was Faithful to God

Every Protestant in the World takes it quite for granted that since Mary was the legal wife of Joseph, that She would certainly engage in carnal relations with him. I suppose it is Protestant second nature that any human being will copulate at any opportunity – when one is saved by Faith Alone, I suppose one no longer has to think in terms of whether actions are morally or spiritually appropriate. When Heaven is guaranteed I suppose the only thoughts are for fun fun fun.

However, let us think about Mary’s real Marital Status. When She conceived of a Child by God, did this not make God Her de facto Spouse? Now, Mary was always a pious child – She was raised in the Temple. Protestants behave as though they believe that Mary was nothing out of the ordinary and was chosen more or less at random – no more than a silly girl. But, really, no one can actually think such a thing. God MUST have chosen Mary for what MUST have been the most exceptional qualifications. She would be Mother of God. She must have been fit for the Part She was to Play, no?

So, it is obvious that Mary who conceived of Her Child by God would have respected that Relationship above what was a Marriage of Protection with Joseph. The Angel explained to Joseph the situation. Wait, the Angel just whispered something to me… Let me remind you that Joseph was 45 years old and had been a Bachelor. Hmmmmmm. Now, do you really suppose he wanted to have sex with a girl? Think about it. When the Priests summoned all men of the House of David to report so that a Husband could be found for the Immaculate Virgin, Joseph didn’t even show up. When none of the other men qualified in the Supernatural Selection process, the Priest went over the records and saw that Joseph was missing and had to have him summoned. What does this tell us? Joseph didn’t WANT to be married. Joseph didn’t care about girls. Mary remained a Virgin. Is there any longer any doubt?

[Lighthouse]

Carnal implies that the act was sinful. Sex between a husband and wife, is not sinful. Where did you get that Joseph was 45, and didn't want to be married or didn't like girls? And where in God's word does it state that Mary was raised in the temple? Mary was not chosen at random. She was chosen because she found favor in God's eyes. We also can find favor in God's eyes, so that He pours out upon us His grace and love. And by this He fulfills all of our needs.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Carnal implies that the act was sinful. Sex between a husband and wife, is not sinful. Where did you get that Joseph was 45, and didn't want to be married or didn't like girls? And where in God's word does it state that Mary was raised in the temple? Mary was not chosen at random. She was chosen because she found favor in God's eyes. We also can find favor in God's eyes, so that He pours out upon us His grace and love. And by this He fulfills all of our needs.

Did you see "The Passion" -- the screenplay is based on the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich -- Catholicisms foremost Visionary and Seer. She was also a Stigmatic who did not eat or drink anything for 30 years -- since Christ did not eat or drink during His Passion. Anne Catherine Emmerich says Joseph was 45.

But so what. He COULD have been 45. He COULD have been a homo. But you INSIST that Mary HAD TO HAVE BEEN unfaithful to God who was Her REAL Husband because He had Her first. You don't know about that, because you have no moral education. But Mary, who was raised in the Temple, would have known that She is True Wife only to the First Husband -- and that was God.

Think about awhile before you keep coming back with Insults for your Spiritual Mother.

Oh, and if God found favor with Mary, then why do you hate Her so much and defy Her every step? It seems you have higher standards then God.

[Lighthouse]

Christ was concieved of the Holy Spirit through Mary, who found favor in God's eyes because she kept His commands and was faithful to Him. Her faithfulness included being a wife to her betrothed, Joseph. God was never the husband of Mary. Only Joseph was. God never "had" Mary. Joseph being 45 is outrageous! Why would a man that old enter into a betrothal with a girl so young? I have no doubt that Mary had relations with Joseph. There is no shame in that, nor is it sinful. You've been decieved and you are lost. I fear there is no hope for you.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Leo Volont
But Mary, who was raised in the Temple, would have known that She is True Wife only to the First Husband -- and that was God. She is not the 'wife' of God, and never had sex until after Jesus was born. The Word of God says that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. She gave birth, and was a virgin when she did so. She carried Jesus in her womb, and was created by Him, by being a descendant of Adam and Eve. The Bible also speaks of Mary having sex with her husband (only one) Joseph.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Mary was Faithful to God

Every Protestant in the World takes it quite for granted that since Mary was the legal wife of Joseph, that She would certainly engage in carnal relations with him. I suppose it is Protestant second nature that any human being will copulate at any opportunity – when one is saved by Faith Alone, I suppose one no longer has to think in terms of whether actions are morally or spiritually appropriate. When Heaven is guaranteed I suppose the only thoughts are for fun fun fun. You're right, God never wants us to have fun. :rolleyes:


However, let us think about Mary’s real Marital Status. When She conceived of a Child by God, did this not make God Her de facto Spouse? No. Joseph was her spouse. He took her as his wife. Even if you think this was just to take care of her or something, why would Joseph even be needed for that if God was her actual husband? Wouldn't God alone be responsible for that?

Besides, look at what Jesus says about marriage in heaven. I don't think you can apply such a limiting concept to God.


Now, Mary was always a pious child – She was raised in the Temple. Source?


Protestants behave as though they believe that Mary was nothing out of the ordinary and was chosen more or less at random – no more than a silly girl. No, she was in the line of David. That's who she needed to be for prophetical accuracy.


But, really, no one can actually think such a thing. God MUST have chosen Mary for what MUST have been the most exceptional qualifications. No. God can select anyone he wants for any task he wants. And as a matter of biblical history, he usually selects people with no exceptional qualities to do great deeds so that the glory points to God alone. David was a simple shepherd. Gideon's army was the weirdos who drank water like dogs. John the Baptist said that God could raise up children for Abraham out of the stones.

God does not need to rely on human beings' "exceptional qualifications."


She would be Mother of God. She must have been fit for the Part She was to Play, no?No one can be "fit" to play the part of mother of God. God was going to humble himself into a human body. He could have been born of the most noble woman on earth and still would have been infinitely removed from His greatness. It doesn't matter how qualified or holy Mary might have been. There's no way it could have been enough on her deeds alone.


So, it is obvious that Mary who conceived of Her Child by God would have respected that Relationship above what was a Marriage of Protection with Joseph. Everyone can have a relationship with God. And certainly that relationship should be place above any earthly relationship. But a relationship with God doesn't out-trump other godly relationships. Marriage is a godly relationship. God endorses it.

As for Mary and Joseph's marriage being only one of protection, what is your source?


The Angel explained to Joseph the situation. Wait, the Angel just whispered something to me… Let me remind you that Joseph was 45 years old and had been a Bachelor. Anne Catherine Emmerich, huh? She certainly may have been a seer of visions brought to her by the Holy Spirit, but should we take any of it as fact? Have her visions been deemed infallable by the catholic church as the scripture has? We have no other reason to believe that Joseph a 45 year old bachelor. In fact, I believe there are other non-scriptural apocryphal writings that do place Joseph at about that age but in fact say that he was a widower. There's no real reason to believe those writings either, but the conflict is rather evident.


When the Priests summoned all men of the House of David to report so that a Husband could be found for the Immaculate Virgin, Joseph didn’t even show up. When none of the other men qualified in the Supernatural Selection process, the Priest went over the records and saw that Joseph was missing and had to have him summoned. What does this tell us? Joseph didn’t WANT to be married. Joseph didn’t care about girls. Mary remained a Virgin. Is there any longer any doubt? Oh sure there's doubt. Especially doubt as to what your sources are.

[Leo Volont]

Dear Philosophizer,

Many on this Page use the technique of making a thousand trivial comments in a myriad of choppy divisions. Really, how is one supposed to deal with all that?

Decide on something important to say, and say it. It will save time and trouble for both of us, no?

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Aimiel

The Bible also speaks of Mary having sex with her husband (only one) Joseph.

No it doesn't, you liar! This is the type of deliberate insult that triggers the Prophecy of Simeon. It is incredible that anybody would simply make up a defamation against the Mother of Him who they pretend is their Lord. It is incomprehensible!

[Lighthouse]

How is saying that a woman had sexual relations with her husband a defamation?

Oh no! This is post # 666 for me. I must be the Anti-Christ! Are you afraid of me now, Leo? :darwinsm:

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by lighthouse

How is saying that a woman had sexual relations with her husband a defamation?



Lighthouse,

Try to pretend you have some Moral Awareness. Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. That made the Holy Spirit Mary's Spouse for Life. She was effectively Married to the Holy Spirit. Yes, She 'married' Joseph for Protection. But She, unlike you, had a Moral Awareness and knew who She was REALLY Married to. She was Married to God. Pretend you are smart for a minute and see the way She saw it. She was visited by Angels and God made Her pregnant. After that what would possess Her to have sex with the old bachelor who married Her only to protect Her. Stop hating Mary!

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Dear Philosophizer,

Many on this Page use the technique of making a thousand trivial comments in a myriad of choppy divisions.

Well,

Really,that

howsounds

is like

one a

supposed cop-

to out

deal to

with me,

all Mr.

that? Leo.


:cool:

[Mal'aki]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

No it doesn't, you liar! This is the type of deliberate insult that triggers the Prophecy of Simeon. It is incredible that anybody would simply make up a defamation against the Mother of Him who they pretend is their Lord. It is incomprehensible!

Luke 8:19 - "And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd."

Mark 6:3 - "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?' And they took offense at Him."

[philosophizer]

Don't forget:

Matthew 1:24-25 -- 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.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

Luke 8:19 - "And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd."

Mark 6:3 - "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?' And they took offense at Him."

The Aramaic word for 'COUSIN' is translated as 'brethren'. Protestants have known this for 400 years but in the spirit of satanic falsehood they persist to misrepresent the Truth.

You want proof. Look at the scriptures. When Jesus was 12 and couldn't be found in the Caravan -- Mary and Joseph thought he was with his "brethren" in another train. This only makes sense if the word is construed as "cousin" -- because certainly other young children of a still young mother would not have a wagon of their own, riding in another train. Yet, protestants will quote this verse saying that Mary had copulated and given birth to these other boys -- rich and precocious boys who could buy their own wagon and live indepedently of their parents. Oh, and Jesus was acknowledged First Born of Mary -- for legal reasons -- the First Born, whether the only born or not, had Legal Rights which were expressed in the Title of being called "First Born". So, these Brothers of Jesus, who owned and operated their own wagon, were all younger than 12. Now, really, is this at all plausible? But this is the Protestant Proof that Mary was unchaste and unfaithful to God Almighty.

Indeed, every protestant that so easily argues that Mary would of course be unfaithful and unchaste admits that that is how they themselves would behave. That they acknowledge that they are totally unimpressed with the Honor Mary received by being Chosen to be Spouse of Christ. All these Protestants assume, that if it were they, instead of She, that it would be a matter of course that they would seek out the next available opportunity to copulate like some stupid monkeys. I can believe that, but only differ with them when the attribute the same Moral Sensitivities to the Blessed Virgin, or, indeed, anyone who isn't moral trash.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by philosophizer

Don't forget:

Matthew 1:24-25 -- 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.

Look at the word 'until'.

The man ate no food UNTIL he died. That is a quote from the same language that you quote. Are you saying that the man had plenty to eat after he died.

You use such uncertainty of language in order to Insult the Mother of God. I can understand atheists deliberately mouthing such accusations, since they believe it all goes off into empty air. But you actually believe there is a Mary Mother of Christ. You must have heard that She has appeared repeatedly in Apparition and you must suspect that She has often Claimed Her Purity. But you deliberately stand with Shoulder to Shoulder with Satan against Her. and then you will act surprised when Jesus decides that you must never ever be allowed into Heaven since it would be so awkward to have you there, after you so expressly intended to embarrass His own Mother. The Prophecy of Simeon declares that we would know the condition of a man's heart by who he would decide either for or against Mary the Blessed Virgin. And you chose against Her. Your Eternal Destiny has already been decided. I'm sorry for you.

[Mal'aki]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

The Aramaic word for 'COUSIN' is translated as 'brethren'. Protestants have known this for 400 years but in the spirit of satanic falsehood they persist to misrepresent the Truth.

You want proof. Look at the scriptures. When Jesus was 12 and couldn't be found in the Caravan -- Mary and Joseph thought he was with his "brethren" in another train. This only makes sense if the word is construed as "cousin" -- because certainly other young children of a still young mother would not have a wagon of their own, riding in another train. Yet, protestants will quote this verse saying that Mary had copulated and given birth to these other boys -- rich and precocious boys who could buy their own wagon and live indepedently of their parents. Oh, and Jesus was acknowledged First Born of Mary -- for legal reasons -- the First Born, whether the only born or not, had Legal Rights which were expressed in the Title of being called "First Born". So, these Brothers of Jesus, who owned and operated their own wagon, were all younger than 12. Now, really, is this at all plausible? But this is the Protestant Proof that Mary was unchaste and unfaithful to God Almighty.

Indeed, every protestant that so easily argues that Mary would of course be unfaithful and unchaste admits that that is how they themselves would behave. That they acknowledge that they are totally unimpressed with the Honor Mary received by being Chosen to be Spouse of Christ. All these Protestants assume, that if it were they, instead of She, that it would be a matter of course that they would seek out the next available opportunity to copulate like some stupid monkeys. I can believe that, but only differ with them when the attribute the same Moral Sensitivities to the Blessed Virgin, or, indeed, anyone who isn't moral trash.

I wouldn't exactly call that proof. When they couldn't find Jesus they went to search among their kinsfolk (as my KJV puts it), or their relatives (as my Greek bible with translations underneath the greek letters puts it). Now relatives or kinsfold wouldn't be like His brothers that are old enough to have their own caravans, I don't know where you thought that up, but I'm assuming it would be more like her cousins or brothers or sisters, like Elizabeth who lived in Judah. The words used for kinsfold/relatives, and brother, and sisters, are all 3 very different and distinct words.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

I wouldn't exactly call that proof. When they couldn't find Jesus they went to search among their kinsfolk (as my KJV puts it), or their relatives (as my Greek bible with translations underneath the greek letters puts it). Now relatives or kinsfold wouldn't be like His brothers that are old enough to have their own caravans, I don't know where you thought that up, but I'm assuming it would be more like her cousins or brothers or sisters, like Elizabeth who lived in Judah. The words used for kinsfold/relatives, and brother, and sisters, are all 3 very different and distinct words.


Okay, look at what these Innuendoes are based upon -- that everywhere the word "cousin" is used, the word 'brother' can be substituted in order to Slap the Blessed Virgin in the Face. Just as you point out -- that Christ had numerous Kinsfolk and Relatives -- why is it that Protestants must insist that Cousins and Nephews and Nieces must certainly be brothers and sisters. IT ASSUMES THE WORST. Without any direct statement in the New Testament that Mary gave birth to a brother or sister, we are give linguistic ambiguities as adaquate warrant to accuse the Blessed Virgin of Unchastisity. WHO BUT SATAN WOULD LAUNCH SUCH A CONSCIOUS ATTACK AGAINST THE VERY MOTHER OF CHRIST?

[Mal'aki]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Okay, look at what these Innuendoes are based upon -- that everywhere the word "cousin" is used, the word 'brother' can be substituted in order to Slap the Blessed Virgin in the Face. Just as you point out -- that Christ had numerous Kinsfolk and Relatives -- why is it that Protestants must insist that Cousins and Nephews and Nieces must certainly be brothers and sisters. IT ASSUMES THE WORST. Without any direct statement in the New Testament that Mary gave birth to a brother or sister, we are give linguistic ambiguities as adaquate warrant to accuse the Blessed Virgin of Unchastisity. WHO BUT SATAN WOULD LAUNCH SUCH A CONSCIOUS ATTACK AGAINST THE VERY MOTHER OF CHRIST?

I checked out a English-Greek dictionary and the words used were in fact "brother" and "sister" in Mark 6:3.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

I checked out a English-Greek dictionary and the words used were in fact "brother" and "sister" in Mark 6:3.

Greek!

What does Greek have anything to do with it.

You are caught in the same linguistic uncertainty, aren't you?

Does the Greek use of 'brother' exclude 'cousin'?

How about original translation error. Was the original Aramaic mistranslated into Greek?


But enough quibbling. What is your agenda? Are you accusing Our Lady the Blessed Virgin of Unchastity? You seem to be pushing the argument that She is unchaste. Why? Are you Satanic? What gain will come your way if you can Slap Our Lady's Face? Do you realize that there have been hundreds of Miraculous Apparitions of Our Lady, all of which assert Her Perpetual and Complete Purity? What do you make of that? You must be setting the groundwork for an argument that She is a Liar... is that what you are doing?

This is what you should do. Join the Free Masons. If you want to be Satanic then you might as well be Rich. Protestants have it all wrong -- they are Satanic but mostly stay being a bunch of pooped on losers all their life. But if you can get into the Free Masons then you can skip over everyone else and get the best careers out there and be rich and successful. you may have thought of being a Christian, but, honestly, if all you can do is throw insult at Our Lady and slap Her Face, then I would say you really aren't cut out for it.

[Mal'aki]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

But enough quibbling. What is your agenda? Are you accusing Our Lady the Blessed Virgin of Unchastity? You seem to be pushing the argument that She is unchaste. Why? Are you Satanic? What gain will come your way if you can Slap Our Lady's Face? Do you realize that there have been hundreds of Miraculous Apparitions of Our Lady, all of which assert Her Perpetual and Complete Purity? What do you make of that? You must be setting the groundwork for an argument that She is a Liar... is that what you are doing?

This is what you should do. Join the Free Masons. If you want to be Satanic then you might as well be Rich. Protestants have it all wrong -- they are Satanic but mostly stay being a bunch of pooped on losers all their life. But if you can get into the Free Masons then you can skip over everyone else and get the best careers out there and be rich and successful. you may have thought of being a Christian, but, honestly, if all you can do is throw insult at Our Lady and slap Her Face, then I would say you really aren't cut out for it.

You're a very nice man.

I'm just seeking the truth.

You should try to be a Christian yourself and love your enemies and stop throwing insults at them. Me callin Mary unchaste isn't a huge insult, it could merely be misreprentation of the facts, or at least what's left of them for us to sift through. My intentions weren't aimed towards hate at all though.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

You're a very nice man.

I'm just seeking the truth.

You should try to be a Christian yourself and love your enemies and stop throwing insults at them. Me callin Mary unchaste isn't a huge insult, it could merely be misreprentation of the facts, or at least what's left of them for us to sift through. My intentions weren't aimed towards hate at all though.

You're idea of seeking the Truth is to try to uncover accusations against the Mother of God! Where is that supposed to get you? Do you want to succeed? Do you want to finally be the one to stand up before all the World and say that the Blessed Virgin has been lying all along and that you know for certain that She slept around. Is that your Ambition in Life?

You can dig for the Truth in a Gold Mine. Or you can dig for the Truth in a Sewer. I would rather have gold then what you have been coming up with.

[Shaun]

1) Drop the "brother" word argument. Unfortunately, Leo is somewhat right here. There is no way to make certain that the word here was intended to be brother, or cousin, or relative. Saying the Greek said it is this means you don't have a good translation--that part was originally in Aramaic, and Aramaic doesn't have a word for "cousin": meaning that if someone were to mean to say cousin in Aramaic, they would have said, "the son of the uncle."

2) There is plenty other evidence against the so-called perpetual virginity of Mary out there. There are Roman manuscripts that refer to "James, the brother of Christ" (or Chrestus, depending on the MS) in Latin and/or Greek. Both of those languages have a specific word for brother, and both use that word here.

[Mal'aki]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

You're idea of seeking the Truth is to try to uncover accusations against the Mother of God! Where is that supposed to get you? Do you want to succeed? Do you want to finally be the one to stand up before all the World and say that the Blessed Virgin has been lying all along and that you know for certain that She slept around. Is that your Ambition in Life?

You can dig for the Truth in a Gold Mine. Or you can dig for the Truth in a Sewer. I would rather have gold then what you have been coming up with.

Where do you come up with these accussations? If it's the truth it's the truth, if I want other opinions to help search for the truth then I'll ask for imput, and I'll give imput. Your whole belief is based on something that your terrified of having disproved, so much that if anyone goes against it you start bashing them and their ways.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

Where do you come up with these accussations? If it's the truth it's the truth, if I want other opinions to help search for the truth then I'll ask for imput, and I'll give imput. Your whole belief is based on something that your terrified of having disproved, so much that if anyone goes against it you start bashing them and their ways.

Mary is Real. When you are hunting for accusations against Her you are militating toward offending a Real Spiritual Entity.

Now, are you for real? Are you in this for Spiritual Advancement, or do you just want to be a half-az Bible Expert. If you just want to show off bible trivia with the other protestants, then, fine -- go your own way. But for me Spirituality is Real. Christ is Real. Mary is Real. And I won't needlessly expose them to insult just because Protestants like playing with words.

[Mal'aki]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Mary is Real. When you are hunting for accusations against Her you are militating toward offending a Real Spiritual Entity.

Now, are you for real? Are you in this for Spiritual Advancement, or do you just want to be a half-az Bible Expert. If you just want to show off bible trivia with the other protestants, then, fine -- go your own way. But for me Spirituality is Real. Christ is Real. Mary is Real. And I won't needlessly expose them to insult just because Protestants like playing with words.

I'm for real.

And if you didn't know yet, your inbox is full.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

I'm for real.

And if you didn't know yet, your inbox is full.

Good!

There are many things to discover. It would be better to look for the Glories and Revelations of Mary, then to study how She can be destroyed -- the tireless study of Protestants.

The Bible is a great place to start, but a small place to end. Have you seen the inside of a Catholic Bookstore? The Bible is the Story of the Last Dispensation. What you find in a Catholic Bookstore is the Story of THIS Dispensation.

Understand what the Holy Spirit REALLY is. Paul's Congregations lost their right to the Holy Spirit and so paul redefined the Holy Spirit in terms of purely human attributes in order to appease them into believing that they were still within the pale of Grace. But the Holy Spirit was as Christ described -- the Works Christ did were the Works of the Holy Spirit. It is this same Holy Spirit that Animated the Saints of the Catholic Church, and of the other Higher Religions. Hundreds of Books. It is in the Teachings of the Verifiable and Historic Saints that we can understand what True Doctrine really is. They found the Way, and so they must Know the Way. For all the Talk that Protestants maintain about the Deification of paul, no Protestant has ever been animated by the Holy Spirit and found the Way to Sainthood.

If you are serious about your Spiritual Pursuit, then it is entirely possible for you to be animated by the Holy Spirit and walk on water like dozens of saints before you, and greater things then these.... even as Christ has said.

[Mal'aki]

Um yeah, your inbox is still full.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

Um yeah, your inbox is still full.

Let me take a look. I thought I've been answering those things. Maybe the replies weren't going through.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

Um yeah, your inbox is still full.

No, we're cauht up.

My Inbox matches my Sent Items

[karstkid]

Leo, I found your source for the Mary "ever-virgin" theory. Please read the following explanation from Mr. Humphrey.

The Brothers & Sisters of Jesus - October 23, 2002

With the recent discovery of an ossuary from the first century, with the inscription on it, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," giving possible archaelogical proof of the existance of Jesus, an age old question will surely arise. How exactly are the siblings of Christ related to Him?
Most of this confusion arises from the teachings of the Catholic church, a teaching that Mary stayed a virgin after giving birth to Christ. The teaching from tradition goes that the siblings that Christ is ascribed to having are the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, or simply close associates to Jesus. From my recent studies, one of these teachings arise from an ancient text called "The Protoevangelium of James" which is said to have been written by the leader of the Jerusalem church, James. In this document it teaches that Joseph was married previously, and had two sons from it. Here are a couple citations from this text:
And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. (Proto. of James 1:9)
And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I shall enrol my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? How shall I enrol her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. (Proto. of James 1:17)
And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem... (Proto. of James 1:18)
So, we can see where this tradition comes from. There are other documents out there that assert similiar things, as well as other traditions, but we don't need to examine them. But is this tradition biblical? How does it hold up to the light of scripture? Let's first visit the scriptures that make mention of Jesus and His siblings.
54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” (Matthew 13:54-56)
31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived*, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said* to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said*, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said*, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35)
But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:19)
So, as we can see clearly from the scriptures that Jesus did indeed have siblings. Some try to say that these brothers and sisters are actually just cousins, or close individuals to Christ. If we assert that, then we are bending the text to say something it does not indicate. The scriptures have a word for cousin (Colosians 4:10 in NASB, Luke 1:36 KJV), and surely if these were cousins, it would use this word cousin.
Not only that but it does serious injustice to Matthew 13:55 and Mark 3:32. If we insist that the words 'brother' and 'sister' are something other than what it plainly appears to mean, then we must understand that when it uses the word 'mother' in these very same verses, that the word 'mother' really means something other than what it appears to mean. Also, if we understood it any other way than the plain meaning, then what Jesus meant concerning those that do the will of God are His brother, sister, and mother, would be lost as well.
Without a doubt, these siblings mentioned in scriptures are exactly that. Now, it remains to yet be determined if these children are Joseph's from a prior marriage, or if they are the offspring of Mary and Joseph. The Protoevangelium of James indicates that Joseph had children, and in paticular, two sons. However, it mentions nothing of any other children that the scriptures speak about. The scriptures in Matthew 13:55, list four sons by name. The four brothers are named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Then the verses also tell of sisters. Not just one sister, but sisters. (Side note: Jude, author of the New Testament epistle ascribed to his name, according to some traditions is also a brother of Jesus.)
The Protoevangelium of James can only make account for two brothers, which are not identified by any name. The Protoevangelium of James does not mention there being any sisters at all. So we have missing from the scene at least four children (Two sons and and least two daughters) in this book ascribed to James. I could try to come up with some sort of loop-hole here to try and make an account of where the other children are, but I will leave that to the wild imaginations of people who seek to do such things. You are probably creative enough and have seen enough TV shows to come up with some rational sounding explanation.
So, for now let's go ahead and assume that at least two of the sons mentioned did indeed come from a previous marriage of Joseph. Can the bible show us where these other children may have come from? You bet.
And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:7)
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25)
The above verses indicate that Mary did not remain a virgin, and that she gave birth to children. It tells us that Jesus was her firstborn ("first child" NLT). It tells us that Joseph kept mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Christ. The term "firstborn" in the New Testament is used 8 times, and comes from the greek word 'Prototokos', and in each instance of its use in the New Testament outside of Luke 2:7 (Romans 8:29, Colosians 1:15; 1:18, Hebrews 1:6; 11:28; 12:23, Revelation 1:5) the mention of the firstborn was never as an only child. That there were indeed other children following a firstborn. However, in Hebrews 11:28 when it mentions the death of the firstborn child of each house from when God plagued Egypt, I don't think it would be wrong to conclude that some homes only had one child, and lost their only son, but surely many homes had more than one child. Aside from that, the term 'firstborn' as used in the New Testament includes other children following. If Mary just gave birth to one child, as some would say she did, we would probably find some term such as 'only begotten' or 'only son' instead of 'firstborn.' (Such as in Luke 7:12 and John 3:16; 18)
In conclusion, all indicators point to Mary having other children outside of Christ, and that Joseph was the father. If the Protoevangelium of James is indeed accurate, we may conclude that two of the sons came from a previous marriage. If we only go by the scriptures though, there can be nothing to cause us to doubt that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations that resulted in the birth of six children.
Article by Jimmy Humphrey of ChristianSteps.com

[karstkid]

Leo,

The Protoevangelium of James says that Joachim is the father of Mary. But the geneology of Jesus through Mary as recorded in the Gospel of Luke shows Eli as being Mary's father. Are you going to believe the Word of God or a fairy tale apocryphal book that was first written over 120 years after Christ's resurrection?

[Crow]

Originally posted by karstkid

Leo,

The Protoevangelium of James says that Joachim is the father of Mary. But the geneology of Jesus through Mary as recorded in the Gospel of Luke shows Eli as being Mary's father. Are you going to believe the Word of God or a fairy tale apocryphal book that was first written over 120 years after Christ's resurrection?

You have to ask?

:doh:

[karstkid]

Originally posted by Crow

You have to ask?

:doh:

In Leo's case, yes. He needs it spelled out.

[Mal'aki]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

No, we're cauht up.

My Inbox matches my Sent Items

Yeah but your inbox is full so it won't let me send anything.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by karstkid

Leo,

The Protoevangelium of James says that Joachim is the father of Mary. But the geneology of Jesus through Mary as recorded in the Gospel of Luke shows Eli as being Mary's father. Are you going to believe the Word of God or a fairy tale apocryphal book that was first written over 120 years after Christ's resurrection?

I believe Anne Catherine Emmerich, Catholicism's foremost Seer and Visionary. She was also a Full Five Wound Stigmatica who didn't eat or drink for some thirty years. More miracles in one Body then Protestantism had in about a zillion bodies in 500 years.

The Best Book you can buy -- it could replace the Bible -- is "the Life of Christ" in four volumes -- compiled from the works of Anne Catherine Emmerich.

And, 'fairy tales' -- once you start calling one set of writings 'fairy tales', isn't it kind of hard to stop? It feeds into Atheism.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mal'aki

Yeah but your inbox is full so it won't let me send anything.

OH! Well, I'll dump the things! Thank you.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by karstkid

Leo, I found your source for the Mary "ever-virgin" theory. Please read the following explanation from Mr. Humphrey.

[/COLOR]

I'm sorry, but I don't just read endless crap unless I know what it is going to say first.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

I'm sorry, but I don't just read endless crap unless I know what it is going to say first.
So you don't read your own posts?

[Shaun]

Back in box:
Originally posted by Leo Volont
I believe Anne Catherine Emmerich, Catholicism's foremost Seer and Visionary. She was also a Full Five Wound Stigmatica who didn't eat or drink for some thirty years.
Proof text, please.

More miracles in one Body then Protestantism had in about a zillion bodies in 500 years.
Blatant lie. Come on, Leo. At least be civil and honest with your debating skills.

The Best Book you can buy -- it could replace the Bible -- is "the Life of Christ" in four volumes -- compiled from the works of Anne Catherine Emmerich.
Leo, are you sure you're saved? I mean, do you trust in Christ or in Anne Catherine Emmerich? It would seem by your fruit/spirit/beliefs that you believe in the latter over the former.

And, 'fairy tales' -- once you start calling one set of writings 'fairy tales', isn't it kind of hard to stop? It feeds into Atheism.
I call your writings fairy tales, but that doesn't make me an Atheist.

We can easily not recognize many books as authentic, Leo, because of their time of authorship and the content within. Just as people today write things blatantly false (check some of your own posts--there is no Aramaic word for cousin: try and go find one for me) people in ancient times also wrote things in other's names and exaggerated or prefabricated truth in those writings.

Just because a book is written does not make it true.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Shaun

Back in box:

Proof text, please.


Blatant lie. Come on, Leo. At least be civil and honest with your debating skills.


Leo, are you sure you're saved? I mean, do you trust in Christ or in Anne Catherine Emmerich? It would seem by your fruit/spirit/beliefs that you believe in the latter over the former.



Just because a book is written does not make it true.


No Protestant has shown a single proof of the Holy Spirit. Protestants are bereft of All Grace. I was once a Protestant and it concerned me at the time that in all the Protestant World there was not one single person who had the Holy Spirit -- not a single miracle -- though, yes, they like to practice talking gibberish and rolling like crazy people in the aisles, but THAT is what they CALL the Holy Spirit, but it is only a desparate charade.

No. I don't claim to be saved. 'Saved' is a Pauline Doctrine. Christ taught the Judgment. We will all be Judged by Christ, and against a Moral Criteria which Christ spent 3 years teaching us about. Nobody will be saved by FOUR MAGIC WORDS.

You say something being written doesn't make it true. That is odd coming from a Protestant. Your Entire Doctrine says that if it is written in the Bible then it automatically becomes True because of some Magical Charm that was upon anyone who had anything to do with the writing, editing, or choice of the Scriptures. So, we have you people saying that it being written makes it true -- when it is convenient for you. But when anything disagrees, then suddenly we can bring in discretion and judgment. Hypocrite!

[Crow]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

No Protestant has shown a single proof of the Holy Spirit. Protestants are bereft of All Grace. I was once a Protestant and it concerned me at the time that in all the Protestant World there was not one single person who had the Holy Spirit -- not a single miracle -- though, yes, they like to practice talking gibberish and rolling like crazy people in the aisles, but THAT is what they CALL the Holy Spirit, but it is only a desparate charade.


Y'all are exhibiting a bit of dishonesty there, Leo. Most non-Catholic Christians do not talk in tongues, and the Roman Catholic church has it's contingency (http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrAlCaprio/Charismatic.html) that speaks in tongues as well.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Crow

Y'all are exhibiting a bit of dishonesty there, Leo. Most non-Catholic Christians do not talk in tongues, and the Roman Catholic church has it's contingency (http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrAlCaprio/Charismatic.html) that speaks in tongues as well.

Yeah, silly, huh? Someone should slap them conscious.

The Catholic Church has had quite a number of Saints, but darn few since Vatican II. Since Padre Pio died I haven't been able to name a major living Catholic Saint. It could be because, like Padre Pio, the Bishops now keep genuine Saints prisoner under lock and key. The Public only found out about Padre Pio by an accident of circumstances -- if the Bishop over him had had his way, Padre Pio would have lived and died locked away in his cell. Bishops are embarrassed by Saints. While these bloated leaders of the Catholic Church are doing their best to forge a ecumenical reconciliation with the Protestants who already have destroyed Christendom and serve the Doctrines of Paul the Antichrist, the Saints would only spoil all these plans by insisting upon the necessity of Righteousness, Penance and Prayer -- things that are anathema to the Protestants and would sour any deals made with the swollen and seedy Bishops.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Leo Volont
No Protestant has shown a single proof of the Holy Spirit. Protestants are bereft of All Grace. I was once a Protestant and it concerned me at the time that in all the Protestant World there was not one single person who had the Holy Spirit -- not a single miracle -- though, yes, they like to practice talking gibberish and rolling like crazy people in the aisles, but THAT is what they CALL the Holy Spirit, but it is only a desparate charade.
Not all Protestants do that. Quit making stereotypes. And who are you to judge? You can't even make a cohesive argument.

No. I don't claim to be saved.
That's apparent enough.

'Saved' is a Pauline Doctrine. Christ taught the Judgment.

Matthew 10:22
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13
but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Luke 8:12
Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Luke 18:26-27
26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

John 10:9
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 2:47
praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

Acts 15:11
No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household."

Hebrews 10:39
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Gee, those are all comments in the bible about salvation, and Paul wrote none of them. Seems to me like you have some reading to do.

We will all be Judged by Christ, and against a Moral Criteria which Christ spent 3 years teaching us about.
Silly eccentric, we will not be judged by Christ. No! We will be judged by God:


Isaiah 63:4-5
4 For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year of my redemption has come.
5 I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm worked salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.

Isaiah 35:4
say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you."

Isaiah 34:8
For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.

Christ is our only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) by whom we will plead when being judged. Christ will testify for us, and we will be redeemed and forgiven by His blood.

Nobody will be saved by FOUR MAGIC WORDS.
Duh. Protestants realize this.

Your Entire Doctrine says that if it is written in the Bible then it automatically becomes True because of some Magical Charm that was upon anyone who had anything to do with the writing, editing, or choice of the Scriptures.
Again, Straw Man fallacy. Protestants believe the bible is God-breathed, and that we can glean our doctrine from it. We believe that the NT can be historically, doctrinally and theologically harmonius at its current state--whereas if I were to take some of the pseudopigraphies or apocryphal books, I could not make a claim.

So, we have you people saying that it being written makes it true -- when it is convenient for you. But when anything disagrees, then suddenly we can bring in discretion and judgment. Hypocrite!
Not when it is convenient, for if it were that way, 1 Enoch would have been in the Catholic and Protestant OT. Rather, when it is able to be verified by analysis and tradition that the books are breathed by God.

Now, go read some books on NT and OT scholarship. You need to.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Shaun

Not all Protestants do that. Quit making stereotypes. And who are you to judge? You can't even make a cohesive argument.


That's apparent enough.



Matthew 10:22
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13
but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Luke 8:12
Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Luke 18:26-27
26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

John 10:9
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 2:47
praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

Acts 15:11
No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household."

Hebrews 10:39
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Gee, those are all comments in the bible about salvation, and Paul wrote none of them. Seems to me like you have some reading to do.


Silly eccentric, we will not be judged by Christ. No! We will be judged by God:


Isaiah 63:4-5
4 For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year of my redemption has come.
5 I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm worked salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.

Isaiah 35:4
say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you."

Isaiah 34:8
For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.

Christ is our only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) by whom we will plead when being judged. Christ will testify for us, and we will be redeemed and forgiven by His blood.


Duh. Protestants realize this.


Again, Straw Man fallacy. Protestants believe the bible is God-breathed, and that we can glean our doctrine from it. We believe that the NT can be historically, doctrinally and theologically harmonius at its current state--whereas if I were to take some of the pseudopigraphies or apocryphal books, I could not make a claim.


Not when it is convenient, for if it were that way, 1 Enoch would have been in the Catholic and Protestant OT. Rather, when it is able to be verified by analysis and tradition that the books are breathed by God.

Now, go read some books on NT and OT scholarship. You need to.

What's your point?

[Crow]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Yeah, silly, huh? Someone should slap them conscious.

The Catholic Church has had quite a number of Saints, but darn few since Vatican II. Since Padre Pio died I haven't been able to name a major living Catholic Saint.

Leo :LeoVolnt:, I think being dead :dead: is a prerequisite for sainthood, so there are by definition no living saints.

It's quite possible that there are people out there living there lives quietly, doing the work they feel that God has chosen for them and far from the limelight who will be venerated as saints in the future. I don't think the Catholic church necessarily requires widespread recognition as part of their criteria for determining who is a saint.

PS--Paul was a Catholic saint long before there was a schism, Leo :LeoVolnt:. His writings are just as much of the Catholic Bible as the Protestant Bibles, and the Bibles of Christians who are neither Protestant nor Catholic. Don't try to distance Catholicism from Paul--he is a part of all Christian history and doctrine.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

What's your point?
Thou hast been refuted and humiliated. Timest for thou to flee home, or face thy ridicule.

Illud est res hoc tempore.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Shaun

Thou hast been refuted and humiliated. Timest for thou to flee home, or face thy ridicule.

Illud est res hoc tempore.

Now, write an essay and tell me exactly how I have been refuted and humilitated. Give me what you think my Big Picture Argument was, and then exactly how you believe it is incorrect and how you have demonstrated it to be so. I honestly don't think you even know what I am saying, and you certainly have never offered a construction of what you believe. You're just a tiny and insignificant little quibbler.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Leo Volont
Now, write an essay and tell me exactly how I have been refuted and humilitated.
If you can't figure it out for yourself, there's no reason for me to explain why.

Stick to the angels in your head.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Shaun

If you can't figure it out for yourself, there's no reason for me to explain why.



Figure what out? You've never expressed a thought. You've never committed yourself to a single coherent paragraph. I honestly don't believe you can think, or you would have written something by now.

[Melody]

If I do the will of the father I AM HIS MOTHER.

Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

There is no scriptural support for the Immaculate conception of Mary.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Melody

If I do the will of the father I AM HIS MOTHER.

Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

There is no scriptural support for the Immaculate conception of Mary.

yes, no scriptural support. But there is no Scripture. Look at the available Scripture. It covers practically nothing after the Crucifixion. The Book of Acts covers only a few details concerning Paul and Peter.

When there is no scripture which discusses Mary, you can hardly claim that Scripture denies the Immaculate Conception. It simply never examines the point.

Oh, I love the Scriptural Reference you find. Do you know what was happening there? Christ was interrupted by disciples saying that his Family had just arrived. IMMEDIATELY, Christ stopped his speach and broke away and went to his Mother and Cousins, but first he gave that nice little 'Goodbye' to the crowd. And look how you interpret it. Instead of being a Complement to the Crowd -- If you Do The Will of God you will be as my Mother who Does the Will of God -- NO, instead of seeing it like that you see it as an Insult to His Mother -- that Christ brings His Mother down to the level of the Crowd. Typical Protestant Thinking.

But yes, if YOU do the Will of God then you will be like the Mother of Christ WHO DOES THE WILL OF GOD. Only a Protestant can construe that as an Insult to the Blessed Virgin -- but it has been at least the 20th time I have seen it used that way.

[Melody]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

yes, no scriptural support. But there is no Scripture. Look at the available Scripture. It covers practically nothing after the Crucifixion. The Book of Acts covers only a few details concerning Paul and Peter.

When there is no scripture which discusses Mary, you can hardly claim that Scripture denies the Immaculate Conception. It simply never examines the point.

Oh, I love the Scriptural Reference you find. Do you know what was happening there? Christ was interrupted by disciples saying that his Family had just arrived. IMMEDIATELY, Christ stopped his speach and broke away and went to his Mother and Cousins, but first he gave that nice little 'Goodbye' to the crowd. And look how you interpret it. Instead of being a Complement to the Crowd -- If you Do The Will of God you will be as my Mother who Does the Will of God -- NO, instead of seeing it like that you see it as an Insult to His Mother -- that Christ brings His Mother down to the level of the Crowd. Typical Protestant Thinking.

But yes, if YOU do the Will of God then you will be like the Mother of Christ WHO DOES THE WILL OF GOD. Only a Protestant can construe that as an Insult to the Blessed Virgin -- but it has been at least the 20th time I have seen it used that way.

You have no basis for your interpretation. There is no evidence that Jesus went to his mother and brothers at all. This is not a goodbye to the crowd as that same day he went down to the sea and preached to the multitutudes.

Mat 13:1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
Mat 13:2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

Jesus was quite clearly setting his priorities in establishing his mission was first and foremost above even the demands of his flesh and blood INCLUDING HIS MOTHER.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Melody

Jesus was quite clearly setting his priorities in establishing his mission was first and foremost above even the demands of his flesh and blood INCLUDING HIS MOTHER.

You have no basis for that interpretation. Look at the scripture. Christ cut the speech short and went to His Mother.

As for His Priorities -- Christ told his Mother when he was twelve that "it was time He do his Father's Work". She said, "Get back in the car, Young Man, ... I'll tell you when it is time to 'do your Father's Work'". We can see what happened. Christ waited 18 more years until His Mother, at the Wedding of Cana, told Him "You may now commence". His reply was a sarcastic "Are you sure it is my Time?" Yes, His Mission was very important to Christ. But it was Mary who Set that Mission!

Honor your Mother and Father! It is a Commandment! Certainly the Mother of Christ was to be Obeyed, even by Christ. And then after the Crucifixion, when the Church was given over to The Mother, it is now on us to Obey.

[Melody]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

You have no basis for that interpretation. Look at the scripture. Christ cut the speech short and went to His Mother.

As for His Priorities -- Christ told his Mother when he was twelve that "it was time He do his Father's Work". She said, "Get back in the car, Young Man, ... I'll tell you when it is time to 'do your Father's Work'". We can see what happened. Christ waited 18 more years until His Mother, at the Wedding of Cana, told Him "You may now commence". His reply was a sarcastic "Are you sure it is my Time?" Yes, His Mission was very important to Christ. But it was Mary who Set that Mission!

Honor your Mother and Father! It is a Commandment! Certainly the Mother of Christ was to be Obeyed, even by Christ. And then after the Crucifixion, when the Church was given over to The Mother, it is now on us to Obey.

The scripture never indicates that he spoke to her at all that day.

The church was never given over to "The Mother" it was not even established until the day of Pentecost. And the foundation of the church is the doctrine of the Apostle's. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, NOT MARY.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Melody

The scripture never indicates that he spoke to her at all that day.

The church was never given over to "The Mother" it was not even established until the day of Pentecost. And the foundation of the church is the doctrine of the Apostle's. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, NOT MARY.

We have Peter's Faction telling us that the Key's were given to Peter. Self serving, huh.

About the scripture never indicating that He spoke to his mother that day. Look! Right after Christ was told that His Mother arrived, he said his little goodbye to the crowd and then, THE CHAPTER WAS OVER. If Christ had kept speaking to the crowd, His words would have been recorded. OBVIOUSLY HE WENT TO HIS MOTHER.

[Melody]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

We have Peter's Faction telling us that the Key's were given to Peter. Self serving, huh.

About the scripture never indicating that He spoke to his mother that day. Look! Right after Christ was told that His Mother arrived, he said his little goodbye to the crowd and then, THE CHAPTER WAS OVER. If Christ had kept speaking to the crowd, His words would have been recorded. OBVIOUSLY HE WENT TO HIS MOTHER.

I repeat myself.
The next verse in the bible which is Mat 13:1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
Mat 13:2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

There is no indication that he stopped and spoke to his mother, instead he left the house and went down to the sea and started preaching to his followers.

[Melody]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

We have Peter's Faction telling us that the Key's were given to Peter. Self serving, huh.



I see, so Peter also preached false doctrine. Why do you even claim to be a christian if so much of the scripture is lies in your opinion?

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Melody

I see, so Peter also preached false doctrine. Why do you even claim to be a christian if so much of the scripture is lies in your opinion?

We don't know who really said what, do we? The Real Apostles were all killed in an untimely manner. Jerusalem was destroyed. The only Coherent Congregations to survive all this were the Congregations of Paul the Antichrist. Some True Influenced survived -- we still have Baptism and the Holy Sacrament (though Paul would cripple the HolySacrament with restrictions and accusations of subjectivity).

I studied History for years. When I look at the History of the Early Church, I assume that the same forces of History which govern all other human institutions, acted similarly on the 'Early Church'. Greeks were liars -- then and now! Propaganda. Corruption. Venality. It would have been strange if such forces were not present.

Read The Book of Acts CAREFULLY. Read Paul CAREFULLY. You can smell the political positioning. Much may be a patchwork of deception.

This is why I resort to the Saints. The Saints are OBVIOUSLY Full of the Holy Spirit of God Almighty. They have FOUND THE WAY. So they can SHOW THE WAY. There Doctrine is not the Free Sin Doctrines of Paul. They Teach Righteousness, Penance, Humility and Service. Work Work Work. Everything Paul hated.

[Melody]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

We don't know who really said what, do we? The Real Apostles were all killed in an untimely manner. Jerusalem was destroyed. The only Coherent Congregations to survive all this were the Congregations of Paul the Antichrist. Some True Influenced survived -- we still have Baptism and the Holy Sacrament (though Paul would cripple the HolySacrament with restrictions and accusations of subjectivity).

I studied History for years. When I look at the History of the Early Church, I assume that the same forces of History which govern all other human institutions, acted similarly on the 'Early Church'. Greeks were liars -- then and now! Propaganda. Corruption. Venality. It would have been strange if such forces were not present.

Read The Book of Acts CAREFULLY. Read Paul CAREFULLY. You can smell the political positioning. Much may be a patchwork of deception.

This is why I resort to the Saints. The Saints are OBVIOUSLY Full of the Holy Spirit of God Almighty. They have FOUND THE WAY. So they can SHOW THE WAY. There Doctrine is not the Free Sin Doctrines of Paul. They Teach Righteousness, Penance, Humility and Service. Work Work Work. Everything Paul hated.

You assume. That is what much of your false doctine is built on. Your assumptions. The scripture is faulty therefore there is no rock to stand on.

Who are you that anyone should believe your assumptions over the scripture?

I know whom I have believed and it is not you. You lack faith in the word of God, therefore you lack faith in the One who is faithful to keep his word. Instead you have traded scripture for fables and half-truths and exagerations. You have become wise in your OWN understanding and I have great sorrow for you.

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Melody

You assume. That is what much of your false doctine is built on. Your assumptions. The scripture is faulty therefore there is no rock to stand on.

Who are you that anyone should believe your assumptions over the scripture?

I know whom I have believed and it is not you. You lack faith in the word of God, therefore you lack faith in the One who is faithful to keep his word. Instead you have traded scripture for fables and half-truths and exagerations. You have become wise in your OWN understanding and I have great sorrow for you.

I have been following your discussion across many threads, and you guys have had quite a throw! Not to detract from the seriousness of the topics, but I must say Melody, that you have the lowest average post count I have ever seen! I was hoping that you could keep this going long enough to get over .15, but no luck.

[Melody]

Originally posted by Lovejoy

I have been following your discussion across many threads, and you guys have had quite a throw! Not to detract from the seriousness of the topics, but I must say Melody, that you have the lowest average post count I have ever seen! I was hoping that you could keep this going long enough to get over .15, but no luck.

I am not interested in posting just to keep my posts up. I come here infrequently as this forum is not my "life".

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Melody

I am not interested in posting just to keep my posts up. I come here infrequently as this forum is not my "life".

I just come during my school breaks and post like silly. It is a great place to hone, but their is not much to be reaped, if you get me.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Melody

You assume. That is what much of your false doctine is built on. Your assumptions. The scripture is faulty therefore there is no rock to stand on.

Who are you that anyone should believe your assumptions over the scripture?

I know whom I have believed and it is not you. You lack faith in the word of God, therefore you lack faith in the One who is faithful to keep his word. Instead you have traded scripture for fables and half-truths and exagerations. You have become wise in your OWN understanding and I have great sorrow for you.

Scripture is woefully outdated! WHY should anybody worry about believing it? Christ said that It would be a mixture of Wheat and Tares -- so even He would conclude that discretion and discernment must be applied in liberal doses whenever anything is read from Scripture.

I prefer the more recent Literature concerning the Great Saints of the Catholic Tradition and the other Higher Religious Traditions. They were all Christ-Like Giants of Spiritual Attainment. Beaucoup Miracles! It is obvious that they have FOUND THE WAY, so they are emminently qualified to SHOW THE WAY. And you don't have to worry about any of Paul's partisans bending the
Teachings to suit the Antichrist Viewpoint.

So, I don't have any doubts. You Scripture Only people who have two Opposite Doctrines -- the only way you arrive at any steadiness is by rejecting the Moral Teachings of Christ and throwing your full support behind the Permissiveness of Paul the Antichrist. I would rather forego a being so Rock Solid, if it required the Foundation to be built on Satanic Falsehood.

The Saints are the way to go. They are all well in the Historic Period, so there is no concern about authenticity, and their Theological Sophistication is more educated then anything you get from the illiterate Fisherman that Jesus pulled together. What, was Jesus stuck with having to pay minimum wage? He couldn't have gotten 12 worse idiots, I sometimes think. The Saints make everything a lot clearer. Go to a Catholic Bookstore. Pull aside the Veil of Ignorance.

[Melody]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Scripture is woefully outdated! WHY should anybody worry about believing it?

So, I don't have any doubts. You Scripture Only people who have two Opposite Doctrines -- the only way you arrive at any steadiness is by rejecting the Moral Teachings of Christ and throwing your full support behind the Permissiveness of Paul the Antichrist. I would rather forego a being so Rock Solid, if it required the Foundation to be built on Satanic Falsehood.



Christ did not state that the scripture would be a mixture of wheat and tares.

The word of God is not falsehood. The same scripture which you vilify and reject will be the scripture used to judge you.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Melody

Christ did not state that the scripture would be a mixture of wheat and tares.

The word of God is not falsehood. The same scripture which you vilify and reject will be the scripture used to judge you.

Where does it say that Christ did not say the Spiritual Nutrition of the Wheat was not the Scripture. Seems clear enough to me. Isn't it one of Protestantism's Major Tenets that each person have the Right to interpret Scripture by his own Lights. My Lights say that the Wheat and the Tares are the Scriptures.

And I notice that you CANNOT QUOTE ANY SCRIPTURE that asserts that Scripture will ALWAYS BE TRUE. The Word of God Doctrine you have is just that -- Man Made Doctrine. Protestants needed to Deify Paul and they could do this with a Doctrine that Claimed that All Scripture was the Inspired Word of God -- this would effectively Promote Paul to the Level of Christhood. So the Doctrine that would make all Scripture Divine Truth was put forward to support a Lie -- that Paul was Equal to Christ. That is how Satan works. He lies.

But as long as he lies in print, people like you believe him. Tongues lie, but printing presses always tell the Truth. Huxley and Orwell wrote books about gullible creatures like yourself -- how people would serve Evil because they were too naive and trusting to know the difference. But Christ warned you. Three times. Insulting me and ignoring Christ's Warnings -- you should really be ashamed of yourself. But Satan must be proud of you -- your steadfastness in the Face of Righteousness must make him smile.

[smaller]

Leo, have you ever had a personal encounter with someone named Paul as a child? Perhaps a Protestant Pastor Paul?

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by smaller

Leo, have you ever had a personal encounter with someone named Paul as a child? Perhaps a Protestant Pastor Paul?

No.

Honestly, it doesn't bother you that Christianity was hijacked by one of the Pharisees that Voted to have Christ Killed. It doesn't even slightly annoy you that Christ's Teachings of Righteousness, Social Justice and Charity are Vetoed by Paul's doctrine that Pretty Thoughts and the Blood of Christ make all Active Goodness utterly superfluous.

You must think I am being super critical. But think of it as a matter of acquired Knowledge and True Discernment. If YOU saw that Christianity was Stolen by Satan, you would be critical too. But at your stage of Education and at your level of discernment, apparently you don't see a problem. But that isn't to your credit. You not seeing the Problem does not necessarily mean that there is no problem -- it only mitigates your responsiblity. Those with the Light of Intellect and Insight must always carry a larger share of Moral Responsibility then those who only bump around in the dark.

[smaller]

Perhaps somewhere in a deep portion of your mind you have buried the memory of Protestant Pastor Paul eh?


Honestly, it doesn't bother you that Christianity was hijacked by one of the Pharisees that Voted to have Christ Killed. It doesn't even slightly annoy you that Christ's Teachings of Righteousness, Social Justice and Charity are Vetoed by Paul's doctrine that Pretty Thoughts and the Blood of Christ make all Active Goodness utterly superfluous.

We have already discovered Leo that Paul did NO SUCH THING. Some have twisted his remarks, but then so have they will ALL writers.

You must think I am being super critical.

I think Leo, that when you say BELIEVE LEO or BURN IN HELL that you are a long ways in and may never come back.

But think of it as a matter of acquired Knowledge and True Discernment. If YOU saw that Christianity was Stolen by Satan, you would be critical too. But at your stage of Education and at your level of discernment, apparently you don't see a problem.

We have seen you fail on the specifics for these issues Leo, repeatedly. You put up interpretations and call them Paul's etc. but they are nothing but current events falsely ascribed to Paul by YOU.

But that isn't to your credit. You not seeing the Problem does not necessarily mean that there is no problem -- it only mitigates your responsiblity. Those with the Light of Intellct and Insight must always carry a larger share of Moral Responsibility then those who only bump around in the dark.

A theological construct of your own makeup that has a following called LEO and condemns everyone else to ignorance and eternal burning? Is this your version of LOVE Leo? This is what you think God will pat you on the back for?

smaller

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Leo Volont
Honestly, it doesn't bother you that Christianity was hijacked by one of the Pharisees that Voted to have Christ Killed. It doesn't even slightly annoy you that Christ's Teachings of Righteousness, Social Justice and Charity are Vetoed by Paul's doctrine that Pretty Thoughts and the Blood of Christ make all Active Goodness utterly superfluous. If you had any idea of what being born-again means, you would know that Paul is the best example of someone being 'born-again.' If you don't, then it must be because you are still 'carnal.'

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by smaller

Perhaps somewhere in a deep portion of your mind you have buried the memory of Protestant Pastor Paul eh?



We have already discovered Leo that Paul did NO SUCH THING. Some have twisted his remarks, but then so have they will ALL writers.


I think Leo, that when you say BELIEVE LEO or BURN IN HELL that you are a long ways in and may never come back.


We have seen you fail on the specifics for these issues Leo, repeatedly. You put up interpretations and call them Paul's etc. but they are nothing but current events falsely ascribed to Paul by YOU.


A theological construct of your own makeup that has a following called LEO and condemns everyone else to ignorance and eternal burning? Is this your version of LOVE Leo? This is what you think God will pat you on the back for?

smaller

Dear Smaller,

Remember when Christ presented the Parable of the 2 sons -- one began by saying 'no' to his father and then did what he had been told to do. The other said 'yes' and did just the opposite. We know who the good son is, don't we.

Now, keep this parable in mind when I say that it does not matter what you think Paul actually said. Paul was playing 3 moves ahead of what he actually said. Satan only cares about how Paul would eventually be interpreted. So, does it matter what Paul actually said, as long as you have White Trash in Georgia driving around with Bumper Stickers that say "I Sin because I am Forgiven" -- a Bumper Sticker and a Doctrine that would not exist today if Paul did not write the Epistle to the Romans.

Christ said it, but of course you will ignore it, because paul didn't say it. I know how protestantism works.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Aimiel

If you had any idea of what being born-again means, you would know that Paul is the best example of someone being 'born-again.' If you don't, then it must be because you are still 'carnal.'

Oh, I suppose all the hatred that Paul had for the prostitutes and the homosexuals was because he was so born again. Apparently Christ had never been born again because he had never been as stodgy and hateful.

Indeed, I have only always thought of the Born Again thing as propaganda cover for Paul. He was a Christian Killing murderer -- so he needed some excuse. You know, Protestants don't really believe it. America is a protestant country and their prisons are full of Born Again Christains -- but no one ever gets let out of jail, and when they do get paroled or released, their Criminal Records are expunged -- they don't get to change their name from Saul to Paul and start over again. You know, if you don't believe it enough to actuallly act upon it, you should just shut up about it.

Oh, and apparently I am not the only one who is still 'carnal'. Check out the Famous American White Trash Belt. Protestant Euro Trash are at least as shockingly Evil. When, in the History of Protestantism, has any Born Again Protestant ever 'changed'. Why do you always go back to the Doctrine of Sinful Nature? Why has Society only declined under Protestant influence?

Hypocrite!

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Leo Volont
Why has Society only declined under Protestant influence?

Examples please. That's a big claim Leo.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by philosophizer

Examples please. That's a big claim Leo.

Never ending Wars between divisive Nation States.

Political Secularism which freezes Religious Morality out of Political Affairs and Jurisprudence.

Materialistic philosophies guide political decisions.

Democracy destabilizes the Nation States which collapse through ethnic inflighting.

Arnold Toynbee in his "Study of History" layed out for us just how Civilizations work. A Civilization grows out of a seed of a formative Religion. If that Religion is destroyed, as Catholicism was in our Civilization of Christendom, then it is inevitable that the Civilization will decline and collapse. You might argue that our Civilization only got Bigger after the Defeat and Disintegration of Christendom. But this is what Toynbee terms "The Universal State" -- it is Civilization become cancerous. All the forces that True Civilization held in balance are unleashed -- so the Militarists fight unrestricted Wars and the entrapeneurs gather unrestricted wealth. It mushrooms for awhile until Concentration of Wealth in the hands of private individuals starves out the Infrastructure necessary for Social Survival and all Civilized structure collapses into Barbarism. The Barbarism continues until there is a New Religious Vision around which a New Civilization can form.

As an aside, it is fascinating to look at China. Their Civilization rises and collapses in 2 and 3 hundred year cycles. Their formative Religion is always some form of Confusism -- Respect for Imperial and Family Authority and Social Righteousness. It is great for enabling Civilized Institutions, but has so few inherent Moral checks on the forces that propitiate Concentration of Wealth that Chinese Civilizations soon burn out and collapse into their barbaric phase. Death and Renewal, Death and Renewal.

Toynbee counted 21 Civilizations. All have been flawed and have collapsedl, or are ready to collapse. I prefer to think that the World has only been trying Civilization for some 7 thousand years now. That eventually we will get it right. With the correct balance of complexities we could have sustainable surplus economies.

But, for right now, Protestantism is an expression of Barbarism -- it stands for lawlessness and amorality -- Paul's very doctrines.

Perhaps Christ did 'send' paul. Afterall, Christ did put a Curse on Jerusalem and the Temple. And Paul did foment the social disruptions which eventually provoked the Roman's into just bulldozing the whole Thing. In Hinduism, God is seen as both Creator and Destroyer, where in Judaic Tradition we tend to bifarcate the Distinctions into two -- Divine and Satanic. It is odd that 'Monotheism' would posit a Universe revolving around Two Primary Forces -- Divine and Satanic -- but it is just Words. the important thing is to understand the Reality.

[smaller]

Remember when Christ presented the Parable of the 2 sons -- one began by saying 'no' to his father and then did what he had been told to do. The other said 'yes' and did just the opposite. We know who the good son is, don't we.

Jesus was right Leo. It is NOT WHAT WE THINK that matters, but what we actually DO.

Now, keep this parable in mind when I say that it does not matter what you think Paul actually said.

I know Leo. This is a reason there are thousands of denominations. You for example represent a version of one of these thousands.

Paul was playing 3 moves ahead of what he actually said. Satan only cares about how Paul would eventually be interpreted.

What you overlook Leo is that you are not immune to the same workings. At least HE ADMITTED his condition. Do you?

So, does it matter what Paul actually said, as long as you have White Trash in Georgia driving around with Bumper Stickers that say "I Sin because I am Forgiven"

I will agree with you that there is ignorance. It is slavery to sin. Jesus did say the wheat and tares grow together.

-- a Bumper Sticker and a Doctrine that would not exist today if Paul did not write the Epistle to the Romans.

Leo, separations started from the beginning. God began the separatings by separating Eve from within Adam. Satan separated Abel from Cain, etc. etc. Subjectivity (individual separated things) reigns in creation.

Christ said it, but of course you will ignore it, because paul didn't say it. I know how protestantism works.

You are talking to the wrong guy Leo. I think there are many things Paul was off on. The collection and redistribution of money for example. Not that Paul had bad intent, but that his actions have been used to build huge atrocious systems. So you can look at a small statement or action from Paul, and then look at the gyrations and generations of subsequent actions BY OTHERS and see today all kinds of nonsense. This is a common phenom that can be applied not only to Paul, but of all human actions from the beginning.

Your insistence that everything wrong with "christianity" is Paul's fault is merely the subjective obsession that God has bound you with and that which CONTROLS YOU.

So in effect THE (supposed) FAULTS OF PAUL control YOU as well....

go figure...

enjoy!

smaller

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Never ending Wars between divisive Nation States.

Political Secularism which freezes Religious Morality out of Political Affairs and Jurisprudence.

Materialistic philosophies guide political decisions.

Democracy destabilizes the Nation States which collapse through ethnic inflighting.

Arnold Toynbee in his "Study of History" layed out for us just how Civilizations work. A Civilization grows out of a seed of a formative Religion. If that Religion is destroyed, as Catholicism was in our Civilization of Christendom, then it is inevitable that the Civilization will decline and collapse. You might argue that our Civilization only got Bigger after the Defeat and Disintegration of Christendom. But this is what Toynbee terms "The Universal State" -- it is Civilization become cancerous. All the forces that True Civilization held in balance are unleashed -- so the Militarists fight unrestricted Wars and the entrapeneurs gather unrestricted wealth. It mushrooms for awhile until Concentration of Wealth in the hands of private individuals starves out the Infrastructure necessary for Social Survival and all Civilized structure collapses into Barbarism. The Barbarism continues until there is a New Religious Vision around which a New Civilization can form.

As an aside, it is fascinating to look at China. Their Civilization rises and collapses in 2 and 3 hundred year cycles. Their formative Religion is always some form of Confusism -- Respect for Imperial and Family Authority and Social Righteousness. It is great for enabling Civilized Institutions, but has so few inherent Moral checks on the forces that propitiate Concentration of Wealth that Chinese Civilizations soon burn out and collapse into their barbaric phase. Death and Renewal, Death and Renewal.

Toynbee counted 21 Civilizations. All have been flawed and have collapsedl, or are ready to collapse. I prefer to think that the World has only been trying Civilization for some 7 thousand years now. That eventually we will get it right. With the correct balance of complexities we could have sustainable surplus economies.

But, for right now, Protestantism is an expression of Barbarism -- it stands for lawlessness and amorality -- Paul's very doctrines.

Perhaps Christ did 'send' paul. Afterall, Christ did put a Curse on Jerusalem and the Temple. And Paul did foment the social disruptions which eventually provoked the Roman's into just bulldozing the whole Thing. In Hinduism, God is seen as both Creator and Destroyer, where in Judaic Tradition we tend to bifarcate the Distinctions into two -- Divine and Satanic. It is odd that 'Monotheism' would posit a Universe revolving around Two Primary Forces -- Divine and Satanic -- but it is just Words. the important thing is to understand the Reality.

"Never ending wars between divisive nation states" also happened during the prime reign of the Catholic Church. Unless I'm defining "catholic church" wrong. What time period would you say that the Catholic Church was reigning? For how many years? And was there really none of these bad things happening in the world during its reign?

For political secularism, it's a shame. I also wish we weren't so fervently secular. Secularism can turn into a form of religious persecution. But it is improper to blam secularism on protestantism. There is nothing in Protestantism that teaches that anyone should be secular. The biggest opponents to the hard-lined church and state separation are protestants.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, "materialistic philosophies guide political decisions." Could you explain that further?

I think it's rather a leap to assume that Protestantism is the barbaristic decline form of Catholicism. If so, it seems to be a rather long period of decay. Why couldn't Protestantism be considered its own "religion" upon which a society can be built? Why must it be considered merely as Catholicism's decay?

I think it's tempting, and often useful, to look for patterns when examining history. But we should not confuse the patterns for rules. The patterns are simply descriptive of what history has shown. They are not rules by which societies must allways follow.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by philosophizer

"Never ending wars between divisive nation states" also happened during the prime reign of the Catholic Church. Unless I'm defining "catholic church" wrong. What time period would you say that the Catholic Church was reigning? For how many years? And was there really none of these bad things happening in the world during its reign?

For political secularism, it's a shame. I also wish we weren't so fervently secular. Secularism can turn into a form of religious persecution. But it is improper to blam secularism on protestantism. There is nothing in Protestantism that teaches that anyone should be secular. The biggest opponents to the hard-lined church and state separation are protestants.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, "materialistic philosophies guide political decisions." Could you explain that further?

I think it's rather a leap to assume that Protestantism is the barbaristic decline form of Catholicism. If so, it seems to be a rather long period of decay. Why couldn't Protestantism be considered its own "religion" upon which a society can be built? Why must it be considered merely as Catholicism's decay?

I think it's tempting, and often useful, to look for patterns when examining history. But we should not confuse the patterns for rules. The patterns are simply descriptive of what history has shown. They are not rules by which societies must allways follow.

Christendom arose out of the ashes of the Old Roman Empire. To simply call it the Catholic Church is to minimize it. The Protestant Churches have taught us to speak of the Catholic Church, but that is so that we will forget about Christendom. The Protestant Reformation did not destroy the Catholic Church, but it DID destroy Christendom -- the Civilization that was erected by and around the Catholic Church.

Christendom had its problems with assimulating sundry waves of Barbarians -- the Huns, the Slavs, and then the Normans. But by the High Middle Ages there was an effective Pax Christendom. But there WAS a degree of instability introduced by the Norman Invasion which Christendom never fully digested. The Norman infighting between the Norman Gangs that controlled both England and France dragged on into what we know as "The Hundred Years War". A weakened France automatically weakened Christendom, as France was the center of gravity for Christendom (there being 20 Cathedrals in France for every one in Italy or Spain).

However, if the elements of Christendom had stayed loyal, the Normans would eventually have been assimulated, just as the Huns, and the Slavs were. It was the internal Rebellion of the German Princes -- Protestantism -- that catalyzed the disintegration and collapse of Christendom into a simple collage of Waring States.



Protestantism cannot be considered a Formative Religion. You need to look at what Protestantism actually does. Protestantism is only the Van Guard for Secularism and then Atheism. One Poster actually told me that Protestantism doesn't have the audacity to use the Name of God to justify its violence, like the Catholics did. This only asserts that Protestants are effectively Godless -- they do not bring God into their Political, Social, or Moral Considerations. This is exactly what defines a Barbarian!

[Aimiel]

It is Catholicism that we have to thank for the dark ages, the inquisitions, prayer to a false god (Mary, or any 'saint') and far too many idols (statues). It came into being because of anti-Christ, Bible-quoting demon-possessed fanatics not unlike our fair Leo Volont, and it is always surprising to me when I run across a believer who is a practicing Catholic. They are probably more numerous than most of us realize. I suspect they see protestants (unlike Leo) in much the same light. We aren't supposed to find fault with one another, then push the sword in up to the hilt, twist and hold it until we kill one another; we are to use The Word of God as an instrument of repair, and as A Light to expose the lies of the enemy. I have yet to see one of Leo's posts which makes sense, or points one to having faith in The Lord, Who lives inside of us. On the contrary, he has said that there is no Holy Ghost.

[Aimiel]

BUMP!!!

:jump: