Flip's Questions...

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Flip! Whats up bro, great questions you have.


Dusts early post about the word 'brothers' should of cleared up alot of confusion on this. The word brother can mean alot of things. Even today that word is used in lots of fashions.

Take for example, I just called you bro, or brother. Because we are brothers in Christ. Brother can also be used for race. In the Old testament they refer to each other as a fellow brother if they were both jewish or of another race. And you can clearly see in the NT that the so called 'brothers' of Jesus was not the children of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, but of Mary, the Wife of Clopas. If you need me to I can run off the exact linkage between the Mary, wife of Clopas to the so called 'brothers' of Jesus.

As for the Historical contridiction of Scriptures. Im no scholar but I do read alot, plus I stayed at a Best Western last night..so I know my stuff. But, my humble opinion, I dont think merely leaving out accounts in a book in the Bible would be contridicting. Maybe Mark didnt write everything down that Matthew did is because he felt that he didnt want to recant everything Matthew had said already. If it was commen knowledge of those events, he would focus on other things of importance. If all the Books were suppose to be the same accounts, the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, would of just wrote one book and said this is how it was. But each book has its own purpose, it stresses things the other Books might not. Dont ask me how, I just think it might.

And as for Mary having other children..I read somewhere that the Line of David was to end when the Messiah came. I will try to find this again because I found it interesting. If the Line of David, whom Jesus was born to, was to continue AFTER Jesus...then where is this line today? Such an important line of people would of been highly favored to God and would of kept them around..opinions here..but it makes sense to me, that when Jesus, the messiah, was born, the line of David would end with Him. In order for that to happen, Mary would not have had any more children.

And to end my thesis here I would like to quote St. Augustine, on the perpetual Virginity of Mary:

[quote]
It is written ([color=red]Ezech. 44:2[/color]): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it."

Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): [color=red]"What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"[/color]
[/quote]


God Bless you flip. Keep up the awesome music you make in Gods name. I enjoy every bit of you and your group.

Edited April 15, 2004 by CatholicAndFanatical

[point5]

my second link was taken from scott hahn's website www.salvationhistory.com but I do not think it is his own personal commentary...but rather a link he put up there. I could be wrong.

-Kiel

[dUSt]

[quote name='point5' date='Apr 15 2004, 12:58 PM'] peace brotha
Ill bring the video on saturday and then we can watch the KINGS crush the MAVS [/quote]
You are out of your blond mind fool.

[flip]

well dope.


first of all, Dust... dont pollute by web string with your comments. jk.

All this stuff was great. Kiel, that last link was awesome. I hope you read it, but it argues that each Gospel was written in different themes, allowing metaphors and symbolism to flow through scripture. Thus, providing history in four distinct and seperate ways, allowing us to read the scripture from a certain point of view, or audience view.

also, Catholic and fanatical. Good theory, however the Gospels were written in this order:
Mark first.
Matt and Luke used Matt and Q - (Q is the common info between Matt and Luke)
and John last, after the second fall of the Jeruselem temple.

the line of David was an awesome arguement, and so was St. Augustine. I could buy the ever virginity of Mary. I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve in it, however I will say that I so not fully understand it.

and i defenitly want to check out more Scott Hahn.



ok, moving on to the next big question:

When I tell alot of protestants about Catholiscm, they start digging on it alot until I get the point of the Eucharist. I can explain the Eucharist and they do understand it, the thing is that they don't understand is :why it is not an open table? Christ in His life had open table fellowship with sinners, impure people, heathens. People that did not nessacily associate themselves as followers of Christ. He invited all to his table to eat - why do Catholics close off the table to others who are not Catholic? For instance, I believe in the Eucharist, however it is a sin for me to recieve the body of Christ. What up with that? And, when i talk to most prots, i can explain the Eucharist and they want to take it badly - but the I say "sorry, you have to go through training and process and convert before you can take it." It reminds me of Phillip and The Ethiopian Eunich - The Eunich is spontaneously taught by Phillip the meaning of Christ and Salvation, and the Eunich then immeadiately asks "What is preventing me from being baptized?" Phillip replies "Nothing" and the Eunich is baptized right then and there. In one conversation, this Ethopian is enveloped in the Catholic church. Why can't this happen now? Can people be spontanously baptized or recieve Christ like the times of the early church? if not, why not?

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]also, Catholic and fanatical. Good theory, however the Gospels were written in this order:
Mark first.
Matt and Luke used Matt and Q - (Q is the common info between Matt and Luke)
and John last, after the second fall of the Jeruselem temple.[/quote]

While that has been a popular theory, it was never more than a theory. A number of biblical scholars maintain different theories. If I remember correctly, the Q-source theory is actually falling out of favor (though many do still hold it). It may be true, but I personally do not hold that theory..too much left to speculation and no real evidence of the Q-source.

[point5]

This is a quote I took out of the following link...which I have read and find that it makes alot of sense as to why other Christians can not partake in the Eucharist at a Catholic mass.

[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ202.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ202.HTM[/url]


"Closed communion is not a denial of mercy at all, but simply a requirement for inclusion into the community, as Paul taught us. Jesus said "he who is not with us is against us," and "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Jesus accepted the distinction between false traditions of men and the true tradition of God (Mk 7:8-13). This proves that He taught one true tradition, which could be ascertained.

If the critics of the Church are correct about this matter, Jesus should and would have stated in Matthew 28:20, "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you, except for the Eucharist; you must allow anyone with any eucharistic belief to partake of communion." Jesus "excluded" the rich young ruler from following Him fully because He required him to give up his riches (which were his idols) and the man would not. He didn't say, "sure, you can come follow Me whatever you think of your riches; that is no problem." It just doesn't work that way. Demands to receive the Catholic Eucharist without believing all that the Church teaches is an unreasonable and unbiblical demand."


Personally, as the author of this passage also feels, I do not see it as such a big deal for a non-Catholic to be excluded from the Eucharist. If someone sees the true presense of Christ in the Eucharist, and also sees that the Catholics have it right, the same as the early church fathers who held firm in the Traditions and writings of the Apostles, then they should also see that whatever they were practicing before has somehow gotten it WRONG, and is no longer practicing the FAITH, as defined in scripture by the link above, that Jesus taght the apostles to practice. Frankly, I don't see how someone can feel that they should be able to take part in the Eucharist, because it is true, and then go back to practicing other aspects of their denomination of preference that got the Eucharist wrong. Like the author of the link said, I would not feel that I should have a right to partake in a closed communion service of a protestant church if I did not believe in the church's teachings and doctrines, although I am a Christian as they are.

On a side note Flip, I see that you are finding many Truths in the Catholic church, but are stumbling in the areas of a few concerns and misunderstandings. That is ok... but I urge you to keep seeking as I know you will. Something that I just recently began to grasp is that if Rome says it is that way then I believe... this has not caused me to stumble either, because when Rome says something they back it up, as you can see, and scripture and tradition all leads to this as being the TRUE Church. I still seek what I do not fully understand...but I have come to grasp that they do understand it far better....and have been understanding it for 2000 years. I can strongly put my faith in that, and it has not let me down, but enhanced my spirituality and understanding exponentially.

I Love you bro

-Kiel

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote]
People that did not nessacily associate themselves as followers of Christ. He invited all to his table to eat - why do Catholics close off the table to others who are not Catholic? For instance, I believe in the Eucharist, however it is a sin for me to recieve the body of Christ. What up with that?
[/quote]

flip, Jesus associated with others and ate with them yes like you said. But he did this so that he may have the opportunity to teach to them. The Last Supper is something completly different. He only had the Apostles present and they are the only ones who were commissioned to 'do this in memory of me'.

The biggest doctrinal difference between our brothers and sisters in Christ and the Catholic belief is that we believe Christ is present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist and our brothers dont they only think its symbolic. The reality of this can truely be seen in John 6 when Christ said "If you dont eat my flesh and drink my blood you dont have life within you". Now mind you, this can be argued over and over again about whether He was talking about actually eating HIS FLESH, or it being symbolically...the kicker to this is the Jews that were among Him at the time quarrled saying exactly what our Protestant brothers say - "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?".
At this did Jesus rebuke them and say "I was only meaning symbolically you geniuses!"? Nope, instead he said three times to them "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood with have eternal life".

Now fast forward to the Last Supper - Christ holds up the bread and says "THIS IS My Body" - His focus was the bread in which he was holding up, not the body that was in front of the Apostles.

So in essence, Christ was answering those Jews back in John 6 when they asked 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'. The bread at the Last Supper was transformed into His Body. Thats how.

It all connects! Also St Paul tells us not to take the Body of Christ and His precious blood in vain. We must examine our Conscience first before receiving Him. We must not have sin, or deadly sin as scriptures calls it, on our souls when we go before Him.

The Catholic Church beliefs this 100%, and myself as a Catholic would die for the Eucharist. Im sure anybody here would tell you the same thing. This is why only Catholics shall recieve the true Body of Christ. Because we know who we're recieving.

Hope this answers your questions.

peace.