Flip's Questions...

[flip]

ok... this will probably be a series of questions through the journey of my knowledge and understanding. I really like Brother Adam to help me out with these questions, but anyone is free to reply. just try to keep it to questions and answers, and [b]NO "hey good job" chats...[/b] thanks!

First of all, bro adam: good stuff on the the ever virginity of mary. I explain the way she says "How can that be" by stating her next phrase, "For I do not know man". She was questioning how a virgin can bear child. All your other arguements were very valid. What about the eary belief that Joseph was old, had previous children, and then died? does anyone believe this theory?

Also, if cousins would get legal status of siblings: why isn't John the Baptist mentioned? Was Mary then "the mother of John (The Baptist)"? Which would mean The Baptist had two mothers. Is this common in Jewish tradition? Also, the Joesph the protector is a good argument and I see how it would fit an the jewish context. So, why did Jesus give Mary over to John (The Beloved)? Joseph must be dead, no? And, yes this would have been an insult to his mother and brothers if it were true, but Jesus commonly insulted many peeps: Scorning his mother in the temple when he was young, scorning his mother at the wedding feast about the wine, and not to mention saying that he has no mother or brothers at all! (pretty insulting to me!)

And, how and why does Paul and Josepheus (Jewish historian) know James as Jesus "brother"? do they just mean "cousin"?



And for the next question: went over this in bible study, care to take a stab at it?

1 John 2
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, [b]and you do not need anyone to teach you[/b]. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

that is all, try to keep the answers short and sweet ok? thanks dude.

Edited April 7, 2004 by flip

[dUSt]

I love "hey good job" chats. You're mean.

[Jake Huether]

First of all, welcome! I hope you enjoy phatmass.


[quote]So, why did Jesus give Mary over to John (The Beloved)? Joseph must be dead, no? [/quote]

The answer to this is yes, at thist time it is believed that Joseph is dead, possibly long dead.



[quote]And, yes this would have been an insult to his mother and brothers if it were true, but Jesus commonly insulted many peeps: his mother in the temple when he was young, scorning his mother at the wedding feast about the wine, and not to mention saying that he has no mother or brothers at all! (pretty insulting to me!)[/quote]


The tone of the Gospels in English leaves a lot to be desired. Jesus didn't "scorn" or insult his Mother, ever. The way I like to see it, was that He wanted Mary to understand His own mentality. Mary had only one nature, human. And Jesus, the God-Man, had to at times point out the Divine to Mary. It seemed harsh, but that's all in the translation.


[quote]1 John 2
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.[/quote]


John is talking about the antichrists. He is telling his desciples that they have been annointed [by the Church], and to hold on to what this annointing has taught them (through the Holy Spirit).

John wouldn't be telling them they need no instruction from anyone. If that were the case, then why would he be writing them? He is himself instructing them. They do need teaching. But his teaching abides in their annointing. Because in their annointing they became members of the Body of Christ, the Church. And it is through the Church that they recieve their instruction. the antichrist is agains the Church, who is the Body of Christ, and so one who is instructed by Christ's Body cannot be taught by one who rejects Christ's Body.

[Dave]

We know that Jesus never sinned. If He had insulted his mother, then He would've sinned against the commandment to honor our father and mother.

[cmotherofpirl]

May I ask what bible translation you are using?

[flip]

cool. first of all, thanks for the welcome, but im one of phatmass' earliest members...


you're points are good. especially Jesus honoring the honor your mother commandment. that really shut down the insulting arguement. The translation of English is a viable arguement, well noted.

Good point about the 1 John quote - That's kind of what I argued in bible study.

I am using the NIV translation, if you would like I can use The American Bible in the future.

I still want to know why most all new testament biblical scholars (Crossan, Borg, Tatum, Chancey, Sanders, etc.), Josepheus, and the apostle paul regarded James as Jesus' "Brother".


what up wit dat?

[dUSt]

From Catholic Answers:

[i]When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).[/i]

I'm guessing that the Biblical Scholars that Flip mentioned are Protestant, therefore, try to show James as Jesus' brother in an attempt to disprove Catholic theology?

[dUSt]

Also, this makes a lot of sense to me:

[i]When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.[/i]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='flip' date='Apr 7 2004, 01:07 PM'] cool. first of all, thanks for the welcome, but im one of phatmass' earliest members...


you're points are good. especially Jesus honoring the honor your mother commandment. that really shut down the insulting arguement. The translation of English is a viable arguement, well noted.

Good point about the 1 John quote - That's kind of what I argued in bible study.

I am using the NIV translation, if you would like I can use The American Bible in the future.

I still want to know why most all new testament biblical scholars (Crossan, Borg, Tatum, Chancey, Sanders, etc.), Josepheus, and the apostle paul regarded James as Jesus' "Brother".


what up wit dat? [/quote]
Can you find a RSV-CE bible?

Crossen is an ex-catholic priest. He is not faithful to the teachings of the Church. The early Church said Jesus had no brother, that is why John was asked by Jesus on the cross, to take care of Mary

[Norseman82]

[quote name='flip' date='Apr 7 2004, 11:07 AM'] Crossan [/quote]
That's one problem right there. Crossan is unreliable. He was a main participant in that Jesus seminar which came to the conclusion that Christ really didn't rise from the dead. He also said in a History Channel special that the Last Supper was a later invention of the church.

BTW, I tried to take some pics when youse guys were at St. Bart's but they didn't
cme out well.

[flip]

hey guys... yeah, i probably guessed that you guys hated Crossan. I dont believe most of his claims either, but i do respect him as a scholar. (BTW, he still considers himself Catholic!)

I am taking a historical Jesus class right know and that is why im trying to figure things out. What i do know so far is that all biblical scholars that we have studied ALL agree that Jesus had brothers. So, I guess I am just asking for some material from a Catholic biblical scholar claiming that Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters, factually. (if that is even possible to prove without faith claims)

Also, I was wondering what is the Catholic position on the dating of the gospels. Biblical scholars tend to agree that John was written last, more than 50 years after Christ. When one reads John, you find alot of high Christology and Theology. (In John, you find "eat my flesh", Mary at the foot of the cross, and Mary giving over to the beloved disciple). Without John, these Catholic traditions would not be biblically based. Not to say that john is not viable, but biblical scholars believe that alot of John is influenced and developed by the existing church and early theology. John is also a day earlier in the Passion narrative, and has no last supper (b/c the meal is not on passover, its a day earlier)

You can find very interesting comparisons in Mark and in John. In mark, you see Jesus walking around doing his thing but he keeps telling everyone to not say anything and to not tell what they saw. In John, jesus is walking around telling everybody is God and proclaiming it proudly.

Most scholars testify that john is not as historically accurate as the synoptic gospels. if this is true, the validity of john as a historical document is diminsihed. What is the Catholic view on this?

please remember CHARITY in the name of the Church when replying to me. I feel that these ideas might piss some of you off. Remember, I am an honest seeker of truth and pursuer of knowledge of the catholic church...


hope yall are having a happy holy week.

[cmotherofpirl]

John had a lifetime to reflect on the life of Christ. He wrote in Ephesus at the end of his life.
The Gospels are complementary in nature and reflect the individuals who wrote them.

When you are studying, please remember the bottom line is the Church says the Gospels are totally historical, no matter what a "theologian" might come up with.

[flip]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 8 2004, 10:20 PM']When you are studying, please remember the bottom line is  the Church says the Gospels are totally historical, no matter what a "theologian" might come up with.[/quote]
Can some one tell me exactly how true this is? When looking at the four gospels, it is so overwhelmingly apparent that they contradict each other with historical data. It seems silly that the Catholic Church would make this claim.

IE:

Mark's Jesus runs around and tells everyone to keep quiet about his miracles/ healings/ ministry.

Matt's Jesus was born at [i]home [/i]in Bethlehem, then moved to Nazereth, after the flight to egypt.

Luke's Jesus has no flight to Egypt, but is born in Bethlehem (not his home) because of a Roman census (Which NO record has been found in any Roman Historical Sources)

Finally, John's Jesus procalims his Godness though the "I am" statements (contrasted to Mark, where Jesus is so secret)

These are just a few problems with the historical Jesus that any reader of the bible can easily see. What I want to find is a Catholic biblical scholar that comments on the historical Jesus. Will anybody help me? I might convert if someone does...




By the way, all four gospels seem to point to the elite Jews for the crucifixion of Christ and paint Pilate to be a caring, comapassionate man. In reality, Pontius Pilate was one of the most terrible and barbaric governers for Rome. This is proved through Roman and Jewish (Josepheus) historical sources. In Roman sources, Pilate is actually removed from the title of governer for brutality (for Rome, he MUST have been pretty bad: The Romans INVENTED crucifixion and promoted it). Also, the Gospels and Gibson's movie tells the story that Pilate crucified Christ to appease the Jewish elite. Why would Pilate have to appease the High Priest? Pilate himself was in charge of appointing the High Priest!!! Since Christ was crucified as a political criminal, i believe the Romans had ALOT more to do with Jesus' death than the Gospels make it out to be.

sorry for the tangent there, please answer any or all of these puzzling questions. dont be scerred...

[luciana]

Hi Flip, I love your group's album BTW I got it before I got the massmatics CD

You asked for a Catholic scholar that deals with the historical Jesus claims.Have you checked out Dr. Scott Hahn?
I know that in some of his talks on his Scripture Matters show he's dealt with the whole dating the Gospel and Gospel accuracy controversies. His website is www.salvationhistory.com.
Also I remember reading Mark Shea's book, Evangelical Is Not Enough, in which he writes about how going against the Jesus seminar people showed him the Church. It didn't get into too much detail, though, as any of Scott Hahn's work would. It's a short, quick read.

Hope this helps, that's all I can think of right now, need some sleep
Happy Easter and God bless.

Edited April 12, 2004 by labrego

[dUSt]

Flip. I'll work on finding some info for you. Scott Hahn is an excellent source, as Kiel will probably tell you.

[luciana]

Sorry, I gave the wrong title for Mark Shea's Book. I meant his book [i]By What Authority[/i] .

[cmotherofpirl]

Holy Mother the Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held and continues to hold that the four Gospels . . . whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up into heaven. - Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, V, 19


various articles

The Inspiration of Scripture
Jeff Cavins




I remember growing up with a love for books. It wasn't unusual for me to
read a book through three or four times, each time finding intriguing
new bits of information about characters and plots that I didn't see
before. This happens each time I read the Bible.
After experiencing a deeper conversion to Christ, I started reading the
Bible with great enthusiasm. Under-standing that it was actually God's
Word made reading the Bible different than any other book. My zeal for
the Bible was bolstered by this understanding that the entire book was
inspired; God was the author. Without the assurance of its inspiration,
my love for Scripture could have easily slipped into skepticism, and my
Bible would have collected dust on the shelf.
Thank God for the Catholic Church, which not only assures us that God is
the Author of the entire Bible, but "forcefully and specifically exhorts
all the Christian faithful . . . to learn Ôthe surpassing knowledge of
Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures" (Catechism
of the Catholic Church 133).
The Catholic Church teaches that divine revelation comes to us through
three channels: the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium (the bishops
of the Church who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome). Vatican II
describes the relationship between these three channels, saying that
they "are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without
the others" (Dei Verbum 10 ).
While all three of these elements are infallible, that is to say
incapable of error, in a particular sense it can be said that only the
Bible is divinely inspired.
The term "inspired" comes from the Greek compound word theopneustos,
which means "God-breathed" (Theos, "God," pneo, "to breathe"). When the
Church speaks of the Bible as inspired, she means that the principal
author of Scripture is God. Dei Verbum declares: "For holy mother
Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (cf. John 20:31; 2 Tim.
3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old
and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts are sacred
and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the
Church herself" (no.11). The phrase "God is the author" is the classic
formula used by the Fathers and doctors of the Church to describe
inspiration, and it occurs repeatedly in most of the official Church
documents that deal with the subject of biblical inspiration.
St. Paul describes how the principal author of Scripture, the Holy
Spirit, made known the wisdom of God by communicating spiritual thoughts
with spiritual words. (1 Cor. 2:13). We marvel at how far God "has gone
in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human
nature" (DV 13). He has stooped down to us like a Father to His child
and has adapted His thoughts to both our words and ability to
understand.
An important term related to the subject of inspiration is divine
"accommodation" or "condescension." This refers to the "adaptation and
adjustment of the transcendent to the mundane" (Stephen D. Benin, The
Footprints of God [New York: State University of New York Press, 1993],
xvii). In other words, through Scripture, God discloses the wisdom of
the ages in "baby-talk," so that you and I can understand Him. The
Church trusts in the genius of the Holy Spirit as author to consign to
writing (baby-talk) everything and only those things which God wanted
written. This is what we mean when we speak of Scripture being inspired
by the Holy Spirit.
Keeping in mind that breath is what gives life to words, we can more
easily understand why the Bible is called God's "Word." It's God's own
breath that has filled the human words of Sacred Scripture with their
divine meaning - He is the
primary cause of every part of Scripture. Just as, in His Incarnation,
God the Son came to us as Christ, the Word of God in human flesh, so too
the Word of God comes to us clothed in human words. This is why St.
Jerome could say, "Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."
Pope Pius XII said in Divino Afflante Spiritu, "For as the substantial
Word of God became like to men in all things, Ôexcept sin,' so the words
of God, expressed
in human language, are made like to
human speech in every respect, except error" (no. 37).
And this is where the mystery of Scripture's inspiration becomes most
obvious. Somehow, and we don't know exactly how, God directly inspired
Scripture with His own words and at the same time the human authors (eg.
Moses, St. Matthew, St. Paul) were completely free in the process. How
did God do this?
It's easier to explain what God did not do when He inspired Scripture.
Here are some common misconceptions many people hold about the
inspiration of Scripture. Each of them is wrong.
First, inspiration does not mean that God merely assisted man in the
writing process. He actively caused and inspired those men to write what
He willed them to write. What was written in Scripture is there because
God wanted it there.
Second, God did not "approve" the work of the inspired writers of
Scripture after they were finished. In other words, God didn't review
what St. Paul had written and decide that He would approve it because it
was correct.
Third, the human authors of Scripture were not mere scribes, passive
recipients of revelation. They did not engage in "automatic
handwriting," merely writing out whatever God whispered in their ears.
No, the Lord "made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him
acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to
writing everything and only those things which He wanted" (DV 11).
In a mystical harmony man wrote what he wanted and God wrote what He
wanted. The human writer cooperated to write all that God willed,
without error, and retained his complete freedom. That's why we can
clearly see the human author's unique personality shine through - his
own literary style, sense of humor, and grammatical skill. And this
mysterious
synergy between the human authors and the Divine Author was not even
always apparent to the inspired men themselves as they wrote Scripture!
The Church concludes that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged
as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God
wanted put
into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11).
At some point you may encounter skeptics (yes, I met one several years
ago) who challenge or confuse certain aspects of the Church's teaching
on Scripture's inspiration. Some question the inspiration of the Bible,
suggesting that individual books, such as the book of Jonah, are mere
fables or pious mythology, not fact. But the fact is quite to the
contrary. The Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that all 73
books of the Bible are inspired.
Some argue that certain stories of the Bible, like the creation story,
or Noah and the flood, taken from Genesis chapters 1-11, are not
inspired, but merely popular narrations borrowed from ancient cultures.
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis, taught that the first
eleven chapters of Genesis are "truly a kind of history; and that the
same chapter, in simple and figurative speech suited to the mentality of
a people of little culture, both recount the principal truths on which
the attainment of our eternal salvation depends, and also the popular
description of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people."
The pope went on to say, "But if the ancient sacred writers draw
anything from popular narrations (which indeed can be conceded) it must
never be forgotten that they did so assisted by the impulse of divine
inspiration, by which in selecting and passing judgment on those
documents, they were preserved free from all error. Moreover, these
matters which have been received into Sacred Literature from popular
narrations are by no means to be identified with mythologies or other
things of this kind."
Some people will only affirm the Bible's inspiration in those parts of
the text that contain revealed doctrine or those parts that pertain only
to matters of faith and morals. Their false presupposition is that the
portions of the Bible that are absolutely true and free from error are
only the portions that deal directly with religion, and that all
non-religious material in the Bible is merely the clothing in which
Divine truth is presented. This approach is dangerous because it draws a
false distinction between so called "primary texts," that presumably
pertain to religion, and those "secondary texts," which presumably do
not. Following this line of approach leaves the reader of Scripture in a
precarious position of having to determine which portions of Scripture
are "religious" in nature, and therefore inspired.
In 1920, Pope Benedict XV dealt with this incorrect approach in Spiritus
Paraclitus: "The method of those who extricate themselves from
difficulties by allowing without hesitation that divine inspiration
extends to matters of faith and morals and to nothing more" can not be
tolerated. The Church "teaches that divine inspiration extends to every
part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can
occur in the inspired text" (Spiritus Paraclitus 21).
The Council Fathers at Vatican II explained that "the obedience of faith
is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his
whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and
will to God who reveals and freely assenting to the truth revealed by
Him" (DV 5). By our response, the world will know whether we believe
that God's word is inspired or expired.
For further study on the Church's official teachings on the inspiration
and inerrancy of Scripture, read Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus
(dealing with the study of Sacred Scripture), Pope Pius XII's Divino
Afflante Spiritu (dealing with the promotion of biblical studies); Dei
Verbum, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church 74-141.
I like to remind people that Catholic teaching on the inspiration of
Scripture should give us great confidence when dealing with skeptics who
deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We can trust Scripture,
because God is its author. We can derive hope from Scripture because it
contains God's message of hope and salvation. St. Paul reminds us that,
"For whatever was written in former days was written for our
instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the
Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). Not only are the Scriptures
inspired, they were written to inspire you to love Christ more and to be
a more fervent apostle for Him.
Jeff Cavins is a contributing editor for Envoy. A convert to the
Catholic Church from Protestantism, he hosts the popular television
program "Life On the Rock" (EWTN). For information call 205-956-9537.

other articles:

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm[/url]


[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/clibrary//document.asp?category_id=131&document_id=216"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/clibrary//...document_id=216[/url]


[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=164"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=164[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=166"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=166[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=221"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=221[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=351"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=351[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=704"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=704[/url]

Edited April 14, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[flip]

mother of pearl,



great stuff, i thank you for giving it to me.
I think you might have misunderstood my question. I am not questioning validity of God inspired scripture, but I am merely questioning the points where the Gospels contradict each other.

In the last article you linked, it explained John as a Gospel to be read after the synoptics, becuase he proves theologically the significance of the risen Christ. Also, in the same article it explained that there are "minor" contradictions in the synoptics, how ever they did not eloborate on the historical problem this insues. I do understand the Gospels were written for specific audiences by specific writers, therfore the evangelists views were potrayed in thier writings.

I do not deny the theological significance and the God- Inspired scripture. I was basically asking, which events (like the infancy narratives) does the church calim as right? They cannot say both, for they contradict each other. So obviously, the Church must have a stand on the homeplace of mary and Joseph before Jesus - was it Bethlehem or Nazereth? Was there a Roman census or a Roman massacre? Flight to Egypt or no?

I think they are simple questions. can you help answer them?


THanks

flip

[luciana]

Hi Flip, like i mentioned before and Dust did too, Dr. Scott Hahn is a good Ctholic biblical scholar from modern times to discuss dates and historicity of the scriptures.

Also, today I just got my issue of This Rock magazine and the cover story is on this issue. I just skimmmed the article and it's going to be a 2part article by Dr. Frederick W. Marks, and I though of you. This Rock mag. is put out by Catholic Answers. Maybe you can find a link to it. If not e-amil me and I'l read it through and send you the info. from it, maybe scan it or something.

[point5]

SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO LEARN IS FROM A FRIEND...SO I SHALL TRY

this cleared up alot of the "Jesus had literal brothers" argument for me
(forgive this one for being centered towards baptists...for that is where it fell under the apologetics I found it in)

[url="http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/mary2.html"]http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/mary2.html[/url]

(I got that form the apologetics forum which I cannot find myself leaving upon entering)


Some insight from the knowledgable Dr. Scott Hahn...who you now have a better appreciation for after we watched his conversion story is as follows.

[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/gospelshistory.htm"]http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcg...pelshistory.htm[/url]

THIS IS SOOO GOOD answers your specifice question on the apparent contradictions in the Gospels and the Churches teachings....I had other links but edited them and just put this on because it is so good.!

peace brotha
Ill bring the video on saturday and then we can watch the KINGS crush the MAVS

-Kiel Werking

Edited April 15, 2004 by point5