Reflections from a pope

[Heidi]

We agree on who actually ordains the person- which is the Holy Spirit. Without Him, nothing would happen. In the cases of selecting a pope, Catholics also believe it is through the will of God- that God chooses and ordains the pope through the Holy Spirit.

However, there is the actual issue of publicly recognizing these ordinations- which is done by laying of the hands on the person, etc. The Holy Spirit works through these men, so there is clear and concise authority.

"Execution by secular authorities had finally and officially become papal policy. Under Gregory, the Inquisition as a church institution was practically completed, and the new orders of friars, especially Dominicians, had become the favored papl agents of the Inquisition. The finishing touches were supplied by Pope Innocent IV who, in the bull Ad extirpanda (12520, incorporated all earlier papal statements about the organization of the Inquisition, as well as condoning the use of torture." ( Introduction the the History of Early Christianity, edited by Tim Dowley)

The fruit of the Spirit is love, patience, hope, self-control, etc., not murder. So no, many popes did not have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes from God, not from a vote by men. :roll:

 

[Veritas]

You beat me to the punch. (Oh wait, as a pacifist myself, I do not throw punches - yet I might be able to overthrow the government and create riots! )

:

You've got a wicked verbal uppercut :o

:smt062

 

[Guest]

:

You've got a wicked verbal uppercut :o

:smt062

:-D

 

[Solo]

"Execution by secular authorities had finally and officially become papal policy. Under Gregory, the Inquisition as a church institution was practically completed, and the new orders of friars, especially Dominicians, had become the favored papl agents of the Inquisition. The finishing touches were supplied by Pope Innocent IV who, in the bull Ad extirpanda (12520, incorporated all earlier papal statements about the organization of the Inquisition, as well as condoning the use of torture." ( Introduction the the History of Early Christianity, edited by Tim Dowley)

The fruit of the Spirit is love, patience, hope, self-control, etc., not murder. So no, many popes did not have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes from God, not from a vote by men. :roll:

Heidi,
I don't think that they like your plain ole English relating to the truth. It is a difficult thing to admit being wrong, as humility and teachability is a must in coming to Jesus Christ.
God bless you and yours,
Michael

 

[Heidi]

Heidi,
I don't think that they like your plain ole English relating to the truth. It is a difficult thing to admit being wrong, as humility and teachability is a must in coming to Jesus Christ.
God bless you and yours,
Michael

That, it is. In fact, pride is the single biggest and most prominent sin in man. Only the holy Spirit can give us humility.

But what I can't understand is how the Catholics think they are fooling us. Do they think we don't know what "until she gave birth to a son" means? Do they think we're stupid? :o Their lies aren't even disguised! :roll: They would fare much better by admitting that they are blatantly changing the bible rather than to come right out and claim that the bible doesn't say that Mary was a virgin all her life. : As it is, they look as foolish as someone who tries to deny that George Bush is President of the U.S. Unbelievable. :roll: But as you said, pride makes people make the most ludicrous claims rather than to admit the truth. It's only they who think they're fooling others.

 

[Drew]

Do they think we're stupid? :o Their lies aren't even disguised! :roll:

Heidi you are setting yourself for some embarrassment here. Your repeated blatantly false representations about the theory of evolution make you hardly qualified to make statements about the intellectual competence of others nor about their honesty.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi you are setting yourself for some embarrassment here. Your repeated blatantly false representations about the theory of evolution make you hardly qualified to make statements about the intellectual competence of others nor about their honesty.

The only false claim is that monkeys can breed human descendants. : : So sorry, friend, but I'm not the one who makes embarrassing statements. : My beliefs come from the reality that monkeys breed monkeys, apes, breed apes, and humans breed humans. Only people who are dishonest about reality claim otherwise. ;-)

 

[aj830]

That, it is. In fact, pride is the single biggest and most prominent sin in man. Only the holy Spirit can give us humility.

But what I can't understand is how the Catholics think they are fooling us. Do they think we don't know what "until she gave birth to a son" means? Do they think we're stupid? Their lies aren't even disguised! They would fare much better by admitting that they are blatantly changing the bible rather than to come right out and claim that the bible doesn't say that Mary was a virgin all her life. As it is, they look as foolish as someone who tries to deny that George Bush is President of the U.S. Unbelievable. But as you said, pride makes people make the most ludicrous claims rather than to admit the truth. It's only they who think they're fooling others.

Obviously you can't understand that "until we gave birth to a son" does not prove or disprove Mary's perpetual virginity. There have been numerous posts on this and even non-Catholics admit this verse only proves Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ. No one is changing the Bible.

What sola scripturists don't understand is that when they subscribe to this theology they give themselves more power than our Pope has. You can simply go about and if a doctrine you don't like comes along you can simply claim the Holy Spirit backs you up or go onto another Church that agrees with your ideas.

 

[Heidi]

Obviously you can't understand that "until we gave birth to a son" does not prove or disprove Mary's perpetual virginity. There have been numerous posts on this and even non-Catholics admit this verse only proves Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ. No one is changing the Bible.

What sola scripturists don't understand is that when they subscribe to this theology they give themselves more power than our Pope has. You can simply go about and if a doctrine you don't like comes along you can simply claim the Holy Spirit backs you up or go onto another Church that agrees with your ideas.

:o What power? The power comes from God's word, not our own. :roll: So why do you chastize us for believing the bible as written? Would you prefer that we put our own slant on it? :o Maybe change the words in Matthew 1:25 to read: "But he had no union with her forever"? Or how about this one: "But he had union with her before she gave birth to a Son"? Changing verses is what someone who wants power does, which why the pope refers to himself as Holy Father and changes verses around to make Mary a virgin all of her life. :roll: Sorry, but as jesus tells us, "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away." So the words that the pope has changed won't last. ;-) But true Christians don't change one word because again, only God's word has the power. So again, why do you chastize us for believing the bible as written? :o

 

[aj830]

What power? The power comes from God's word, not our own. So why do you chastize us for believing the bible as written? Would you prefer that we put our own slant on it? Maybe change the words in Matthew 1:25 to read: "But he had no union with her forever"? Or how about this one: "But he had union with her before she gave birth to a Son"? Changing verses is what someone who wants power does, which why the pope refers to himself as Holy Father and changes verses around to make Mary a virgin all of her life. But true Christians don't change one word because again, only God's word has the power. So again, why do you chastize us for believing the bible as written?

The power that you give yourself by putting your own interpretation on scripture.I chastise you for not taking scripture as a whole and nit picking verses to match your pre thought out doctrines. So yes, you do put your own slant on it.

No one has changed anything in Matthew 1:25. The verse proves that Mary and Joseph did not have relations prior to the birth of Jesus. If you wish to prove Mary's perpetual virginity you will have to provide more than that.

You are the one changing the verses here. You seem to think that "they had no relations until his birth." is really "they had no relations until his birth, then they had relations."

I chastise you for putting your own slant on the Bible instead of taking it objectively. Don't you see? There are so many people on this forum claiming to have the Holy Spirit but all teach different things. How can this be? Which person really has the Holy Spirit? There are people on this forum who are not Catholic but disagree with you. So are they not Christian because you are the only one with the Spirit in you? It really doesn't make sense.

The Church of Jesus Christ was established 33 A.D. and has had the same teaching since that time and is the only one that has the fullness of the truth. You have part of the truth in your doctrines but you also have false doctrines mixed in with the true ones.

 

[Guest]

aj - is it not you who believe in the pertual virginity of Mary - but have not provided any Scriptural evidence to back up your claim?

If you have evidence of it, then by all means provide it and put an end to this.

I would argue that the focus is on the wrong word. The focus should not e on the word "until" -

The focus should be on the word "but". Let us put this into context:

Matthew 1:24-25

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The word BUT is the key.

Jospeh took Mary to be his wife - in essense 'legally wed', in what I believe the culture meant to consumate the marriage - ie: have sexual relations with his 'wife'. BUT

He knew Mary as his wife in all ways but one - sexual relations.

What the UNTIL provides is the timeframe.

If as the Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin - there would be no use for the term 'but'.

 

[Heidi]

aj - is it not you who believe in the pertual virginity of Mary - but have not provided any Scriptural evidence to back up your claim?

If you have evidence of it, then by all means provide it and put an end to this.

I would argue that the focus is on the wrong word. The focus should not e on the word "until" -

The focus should be on the word "but". Let us put this into context:

Matthew 1:24-25

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The word BUT is the key.

Jospeh took Mary to be his wife - in essense 'legally wed', in what I believe the culture meant to consumate the marriage - ie: have sexual relations with his 'wife'. BUT

He knew Mary as his wife in all ways but one - sexual relations.

What the UNTIL provides is the timeframe.

If as the Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin - there would be no use for the term 'but'.

The verse is very clear that Mary was not only not a virgin all her life, but it tells us when she lost her virginity. So it take much effort to twist that verse into: "But he had no union with her forever." That means that the catholics' attempt to change the bible is blatantly deliberate. :x

 

[aj830]

The verse is very clear that Mary was not only not a virgin all her life, but it tells us when she lost her virginity. So it take much effort to twist that verse into: "But he had no union with her forever." That means that the catholics' attempt to change the bible is blatantly deliberate.

The verse is very clear. It says that Mary was a virgin before Jesus was born. That is all that can be confirmed by this verse alone. I don't know how to get it to you Heidi. No one is changing anything here except you. As I said in my last post:

You seem to think that "they had no relations until his birth." is really "they had no relations until his birth, then they had relations."

From this verse alone you cannot say that Mary was a virgin her whole like nor can you show she wasn't. So quit trying to turn the verse into something it is not. The point that Matthew was dealing with was proving that Joseph was not Jesus' father and that they didn't have relations that could have caused Jesus to be born by Joseph. This verse alone does not prove that Mary was a virgin forever but it also doesn't deny that she wasn't.

 

[Drew]

The verse is very clear that Mary was not only not a virgin all her life, but it tells us when she lost her virginity. So it take much effort to twist that verse into: "But he had no union with her forever." That means that the catholics' attempt to change the bible is blatantly deliberate. :x

I honestly do not understand how you can say this.

We have clearly shown how Matthew 1:25 does not require a conclusion that Mary lost her virginity after marriage.

You can claim things all you want but any reader who goes to this thread:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28616

will find clear and powerful evidence that the word "until" does not necessarily suggest a transition of state from virginity to non-virginity.

The way we use language simply does not require the conclusion that you are drawing.

 

[Heidi]

I honestly do not understand how you can say this.

We have clearly shown how Matthew 1:25 does not require a conclusion that Mary lost her virginity after marriage.

You can claim things all you want but any reader who goes to this thread:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28616

will find clear and powerful evidence that the word "until" does not necessarily suggest a transition of state from virginity to non-virginity.

The way we use language simply does not require the conclusion that you are drawing.

:o Excuse me? How does the phrase: "I didn't eat desert until I finished the main course" say that I didn't eat desert? :o It doesn't. In fact, it's so specific that it says when I ate desert! So sorry, but your attempts at trying to twist scripture are blatant..unless of course, the catholics can't udnerstand the spoken or written word. In that case, I'll cut them some slack. ;-)

 

[MrVersatile48]

Again, epistles James & Jude were penned by Jesus' younger brothers

He had other younger siblings

I must go now, but see http://www.BibleGateway.org to search, "Your mother & brothers are here"

& where all are named

Must go!

Ian

 

[aj830]

Again, epistles James & Jude were penned by Jesus' younger brothers

He had other younger siblings

I must go now, but see http://www.BibleGateway.org to search, "Your mother & brothers are here"

& where all are named

Must go!

Ian

So why did Jesus not leave his mother in the care of one of his brothers?

 

[Guest]

So why did Jesus not leave his mother in the care of one of his brothers?

What was/is the role of Jesus? Not only did he come here to secure Salvation, but to provide for us an example - to set up His church.

I believe it is our responsibilites as brothers and sisters in Christ to take care of all.

Are we not ALL apart of Jesus's family? Are we not sons and daughters of God? Have we not been adopted into the God's family and ALL made to be brothers and sisters of Jesus?

Therefore, I believe that Jesus prodivded for us an example. He was not destroying family, but rather teaching us what it means to BE family.

As I posted in another thread - Christ came to FULFILL not destroy. Matthew 5:17.

The Scriptures are not meant to be used as a sword against each other. I believe there are issues of the Faith that we could learn from each other - however, we all become blinded when we seek out only to prove ourselves correct.

 

[aj830]

What was/is the role of Jesus? Not only did he come here to secure Salvation, but to provide for us an example - to set up His church.

I believe it is our responsibilites as brothers and sisters in Christ to take care of all.

Are we not ALL apart of Jesus's family? Are we not sons and daughters of God? Have we not been adopted into the God's family and ALL made to be brothers and sisters of Jesus?

Therefore, I believe that Jesus prodivded for us an example. He was not destroying family, but rather teaching us what it means to BE family.

As I posted in another thread - Christ came to FULFILL not destroy. Matthew 5:17.

The Scriptures are not meant to be used as a sword against each other. I believe there are issues of the Faith that we could learn from each other - however, we all become blinded when we seek out only to prove ourselves correct.

I agree with you on this. For this verse Jesus was making us apart of his family, John representing the Church here, and you and I and everyone on this forum are all brothers and sisters in Christ no matter what are stances on issues like this are.

I believe we should correct each other on issues of faith but I also agree that we can all learn from each other no matter our faith.

 

[Guest]

I agree with you on this. For this verse Jesus was making us apart of his family, John representing the Church here, and you and I and everyone on this forum are all brothers and sisters in Christ no matter what are stances on issues like this are.

I believe we should correct each other on issues of faith but I also agree that we can all learn from each other no matter our faith.

I trust that my answer, answered your question.