Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #61  
Old Aug 5, '09, 12:08 pm
Cachonga Cachonga is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 1,053
Religion: former roman catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrn
The word "Bible" isn't in the Bible, but Paul does tell us in 2Thes,2:15 to follow what is taught whether by WORD of mouth OR by LETTER...this says to me that there is more than the Bible to look at. Everything in the Bible is true, but not everything that is true is in the Bible...ie, stem cell research, Euthanasia, or abortion or even the trinity. Therefore we need something to supplement the Bible. Even in John's Gospel he says "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" As far as someone putting their soul in the magisterium's hands, Jesus told Peter that he would give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and that he would build HIS church upon that rock (Peter), Not a church, but HIS church. If he wasn't that important in the propagation of the faith I doubt Jesus would have given such a feat to Peter. Have there been bad popes, priests or even lay people? yes, but that's in all religions, it's no reason for you to abandon your faith. I pray you come back. I'm a convert. after reading the Bible realized I had to become Catholic and it has blessed my life so much...wherever you are in your spiritual journey I hope that you are happy. God Bless you,
How is “Bible” not being in the Bible relevant? The word Trinity isn’t in there, either, but the doctrine is very clear. 2 Thes 2:14 (“to which He called you through our gospel, to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”) indicates that what was taught was the Gospel. Surely you wouldn’t deny that the Gospel is recorded in Scripture? The “many other things” argument doesn’t work. Show me a biography of anyone that records every single detail in that person’s life! Just because we don’t have every little detail recorded doesn’t mean we’re somehow missing something of importance. Could you imagine a biography on Ben Franklin that didn’t mention his famous “fly a kite in an electrical storm” experiment? Or a biography of Abraham Lincoln that neglected to mention he was born in a log cabin? Has your “infallible” Magisterium ever, infallibly declared a single word spoken by Jesus, or a single deed performed by Him that we do not have recorded in scripture? How about any of the Apostles? If so, please tell me where I can find this. And if you can’t figure out that euthanasia and abortion (and any research which involves an embryo or fetus) are murder (which God clearly forbids), then you need some serious help!
__________________
If you don't enjoy what you're doing, you're doing something wrong!
  #62  
Old Aug 5, '09, 2:22 pm
Katrn Katrn is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 19
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
As I already explained, my concern is that the Catholic Church has made Mary's perpetual virginity a dogma, pronouncing an anathema on anyone who denies it. I see more things in Scrpture against this idea than anyone has been able to present to support it (likewise for her immaculate conception and bodily assumption; I object to the "mother of God" as a title for Mary, since this was not the original intent of the council).

In regard to what Luther, Calvin or Zwingli believed, are you saying they were infallible? I don't believe they were. If you can show me where they proved her perpetual virginity from Scripture, I'll look at. Otherwise, I would suggest that, since they did not leave the Church due to problems with Mary, they did not fully study the issues, therefore they continued to believe what they had been taught from their youth.

In regard to this belief going back to the 2nd century, I would remind you that Paul, Peter and John (and even the entire Church) had to deal with heresies and false teachings while they were still alive and active. Why is it hard to believe that heresy crept in after they were gone (something that Paul prophesied in Acts 20:29)? Show me in Scripture or do not demand me to accept it!
I believe the dogma is that Mary is the mother of God the son...not the father...the pope only "turns" something into dogma that has always been accepted, but that people have for some reason decided to fight about, and turn into an issue...I'm sure Jesus is really happy with everyone who insults his mother, who said yes to the Lord and was at his birth, death, resurrection, and ascention...who of us were there for all of that, let's respect our Lord's mother, you don't have to pray to her, but at least respect her. Do you respect your own mother? Christianity has a lot of mysteries, and traditions....like I said before, look at 2Thes2:15...we are to go by WORD of mouth OR LETTER. That's one verse you really can't take out of context. As far as fighting over the Lord..."where is that in the Bible...Show me" I believe is a little blasphemous, we need to all be worshipiping Him, not fighting. If you really want to know where Catholics find these"made up" things in the Bible, may I suggest Patrick Madrid's book.."Where's That in the Bible" He's more of an actual theologian than probably most of us bickering.
  #63  
Old Aug 5, '09, 11:52 pm
wbarquez wbarquez is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 39
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
You misunderstand the silence. When God does something that deviates from the norm, He tells us. Why don’t we have something in scripture that clearly informs us that Mary (and Joseph) lived a celibate life? I see no scripture that indicates such was the case, therefore it is reasonable to believe Joseph and Mary did have normal, marital relations.
Why should be important for God to tell you if they had or had not any marital relations? Would it be crucial for your salvation?
  #64  
Old Aug 6, '09, 7:03 am
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

What we have here is a direct result of the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. The word "until' in Mt 1:25 was to show two things. First, Jesus was Mary's first born and second, that Joseph was not involved [it was a virgin birth]. This false idea that there were other children is also based on a strict interpretation of the Greek word 'adelphos' in the "brethren of the Lord" verses. But nowhere does scripture claim that anyone other than Jesus was a child of Mary. As for the word adelphos it can be shown that it is used in scripture in a generic sense and imposing a strict interpretation such as meaning a sibling is not warranted. For instance Paul writes that when in Jerusalem he met Peter but saw no other apostle except James, the Lord's brother [Ga 1:19]. There were only two James that were apoles. Mathew 10:2,3 tells us one was the brother of the apostle John and the son of Zebedee. The other was the son of Alpheus. So where is the apostle James who is the son of Joseph? Not there. Another example and this one from the lips of Jesus himself. Look at Luke 22:32. Jesus says to Peter:

"but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

The word brethren as used there refers to the other apostles. It is the Greek word adelphos. Now, are we to think that all the apostles were siblings? Especially when only Andrew is said, by scripture, to be his sibling. So how can this James be Christ's brother and how can the apostles all be brothers if they are not siblings? Conversely if James is Christ's sibling brother as well as a sibling brother to all the other apostles doesn't that make all the apostles Jesus' sibling brothers?

Obviously the allegation of adelphos as meaning a sibling quickly devolves into absurdity. So how do we explain the relationship of James to Jesus? Here is where sola scriptura falls on its face. Sola scriptura cannot explain it. One has to go outside of scripture to do so. So here it is. James is the son of Alpheus who, we know from Tradition was also known as Clopas and who was married to a woman also named Mary. Alpheus/Clopas was Joseph's sibling brother. That is why in John 19:25 his wife is called the Virgin Mary's sister. In actuality they are sisters-in-law being the wives of two brothers. You really didn't believe that the parents of the Virgin Mary gave the same name to two daughters did you???? So James is a cousin to Jesus not a sibling brother.

This points out why sola scriptura is a demonic doctrine. It only adds error to the teaching of truth. There are, by protestant estimates [Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary], over 40,000 protestant denominations in the world today all because protestantism violation of scripture [2Thess 2:15] by rejecting the Oral Tradition in favor of sola scriptura.
  #65  
Old Aug 7, '09, 1:23 am
wbarquez wbarquez is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 39
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

The problem with the Sola Scriptura mindset is that it tries to find every detail in the Bible when the Bible was not written to give every detail. For Catholics, the whole of divine revelation has been entrusted to the Church for its safekeeping and exposition. The Bible is only part of that revelation that has been committed to canonical writing, which we call Sacred Scriptures. Some Marian doctrines cannot be clearly found in Sacred Scriptures, but can be found in that part of revelation that has not been written down, which we call Sacred Tradition. In the first place, there is no command from our Lord that the whole of the Christian doctrine be committed to writing. Thus, it would be foolish to try to find every Christian doctrine in the Bible. Even Paul holds as reliable teachings that emanate from the written word and those that come via word of mouth (cf. II Thess. 2:15).
  #66  
Old Aug 7, '09, 1:24 pm
Cachonga Cachonga is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 1,053
Religion: former roman catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrn
the pope only "turns" something into dogma that has always been accepted, but that people have for some reason decided to fight about, and turn into an issue...
If what you say is true, then perhaps you could show some documentation that shows who was arguing about the immaculate conception or bodily assumption right before the pope made it a dogma? Could you show me some documentation that proves these were taught by the Apostles? Before answering that, it might be a good idea to agree on some things of importance. I believe (and I’m guessing you would as well), that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. That being the case, wouldn’t you agree that, just like Sacred Scripture, all “Sacred Tradition” would have been given before the death of the last Apostle? Now, if we can agree on this, then can you show me any proof that ANY of the Apostles ever taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived or bodily assumed? If Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition come from the same source (the Holy Spirit), then doesn’t it stand to reason that Sacred Tradition would be as unchangeable as the written Word? If Sacred Tradition is unchangeable, then wouldn’t any “development theory” contradict these Sacred Traditions? If you don’t agree on any of the preceding, then I think we need to visit that before going on.

In regard to respecting Mary (or even my own mother), I do respect them both! I respect them enough to not want them to be misrepresented. Nobody has been able to explain to me how a sinless person can make a sin offering (which Mary did), show me where Scriptures indicates Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, or show me scripture that tells us Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven. If I said I believed these things, I’d be a liar, which (besides being a sin) would dishonor both God and Mary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrn
Christianity has a lot of mysteries, and traditions....like I said before, look at 2Thes2:15...we are to go by WORD of mouth OR LETTER. That's one verse you really can't take out of context.
You’re right, it’s hard to take 2 Thes 2:15 out of context … unless you don’t look at what the context is. Verses 13 &14 says, “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth: To which he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Seems clear to me that Paul was discussing the Gospel. Where, in the Gospel, do you find Mary’s perpetual virginity (or any of the other Marian dogmas)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrn
As far as fighting over the Lord..."where is that in the Bible...Show me" I believe is a little blasphemous, we need to all be worshipiping Him, not fighting. If you really want to know where Catholics find these"made up" things in the Bible, may I suggest Patrick Madrid's book.."Where's That in the Bible" He's more of an actual theologian than probably most of us bickering.
Do you really think it’s blasphemous to ask for proof from the Scriptures? Then I guess Luke was wrong when he commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures daily (see Acts 17:10-11). I guess Jesus was mistaken when he told the hypocrites to “search the Scriptures” (see John 5:34-40, especially verse 39). You’re right, we need to worship God. However, I cannot join in your fellowship because the Catholic Church requires me to believe things which I find no reason to believe (these dogmas carry an anathema, and I cannot be a member in right standing with the Church while I am under an anathema). As far as Patrick Madrid goes, I have heard and read some of his stuff (books and debates) and find him not to be a reliable source of information (BTW, this is material he produced after becoming Catholic)..
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbarquez
Why should be important for God to tell you if they had or had not any marital relations? Would it be crucial for your salvation?
It is not important to my salvation. As I said above (and I have said before), my problem is that the Catholic Church has made these things a dogma, with an anathema pronounced against anyone who denies them. In effect, because I do not believe these dogmas, I am under the anathema of the Church, and therefore cannot be in right standing with the Church. Technically, if I went to mass and tried to receive communion, the priest would HAVE to refuse me because of the anathema. How can I possibly have fellowship with you under these circumstances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
What we have here is a direct result of the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
<and following…>
The idea that Joseph and Mary had other children comes from (1) reading Scriptures in context, and (2) looking at what scripture does not say. First of all, in Matt 13:54-56 (as well as Mark 6:2-3), we see that Jesus was in His home town, among people who grew up with Him. They clearly identify Joesph and Mary, then the brothers (James, Joses (or Joseph in some translations), Simon and Judas), as well as at least 2 unnamed sisters. There is no mention of any other relatives! Where is the mention of Mary, the wife of Alpheus? It’s not there! In light of this lack of any mention of other relatives, how can anyone think that these are not actual children of Joseph and Mary (short of “Sacred Tradition”)? You might notice I didn’t even get into the debate over whether or not ‘adelphos’ means sibling or kinsman. In regard to what the Scriptures do not say, I think it is very relevant that there is no clear indication that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. When Gabriel told her she was to be the mother of Messiah, why didn’t he also tell her that she would remain a virgin forever? Why, when he informed Joseph of the miraculous conception, didn’t he also instruct Joseph to keep her a virgin her entire life? Instead, the angel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife (see Matt 1:20). Since there is no clear evidence that Mary was (or even had to remain) a virgin her entire life, it seems unreasonable to think that a married woman wouldn’t have normal relations with her husband. Here’s something to think about – when the angel told Samson’s mother about him, she was told that “no razor shall touch his head” (Judges 13:5). Why did the angel give this instruction? Because it was necessary for God’s plan at that time! Why didn’t the angel tell Mary that she would remain a virgin her entire life? Because it wasn’t necessary for God’s plan of salvation!

The fact that there were other people with the same name doesn’t prove anything. When I was in college, I had so many friends named Mike that we identified them by their major (Computer Mike, PE Mike, Business Mike, etc…).

<continued...>
__________________
If you don't enjoy what you're doing, you're doing something wrong!
  #67  
Old Aug 7, '09, 1:26 pm
Cachonga Cachonga is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 1,053
Religion: former roman catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

In regard to the 40,000 denominations argument, I would say that, in order for you to use this as an argument against Sola Scriptura, you would need to prove that all of these denominations subscribed to it. I have seen this argument used before (only at 33,000), and the source was the World Christian Encyclopedia. Interesting note on that, it includes many denominations that neither Catholics nor Protestants would accept as Christian (including several Mormon denominations, several Jehova’s Witnesses denominations, many Unitarian denominations, etc…). Furthermore, it includes 781 Orthodox Catholic denominations and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. I would suggest that either your “one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” is fragmented, or this source is counting denominations in a way that you would not accept for your Church (and yet you apply it to the “Protestants”! Can you say “Double Standard”?). Could you please give the web site for your source (or the book in which you got this information)? I would very much like to check it out.

wbarquez – please refer to my reply to Katrn above.
__________________
If you don't enjoy what you're doing, you're doing something wrong!
  #68  
Old Aug 7, '09, 1:30 pm
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
In regard to the 40,000 denominations argument, I would say that, in order for you to use this as an argument against Sola Scriptura, you would need to prove that all of these denominations subscribed to it. I have seen this argument used before (only at 33,000), and the source was the World Christian Encyclopedia. Interesting note on that, it includes many denominations that neither Catholics nor Protestants would accept as Christian (including several Mormon denominations, several Jehova’s Witnesses denominations, many Unitarian denominations, etc…). Furthermore, it includes 781 Orthodox Catholic denominations and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. I would suggest that either your “one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” is fragmented, or this source is counting denominations in a way that you would not accept for your Church (and yet you apply it to the “Protestants”! Can you say “Double Standard”?). Could you please give the web site for your source (or the book in which you got this information)? I would very much like to check it out.

wbarquez – please refer to my reply to Katrn above.
There is only one Catholic church. As I understand it the World Christian Encyclopedia counts each country as a separate denomination. While the Orthodox Church is divided ethnically [Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.] the Catholic church is not since we are united under one shepherd, the pope. But the main point is not whether there are 40,000 protestant denominations or not. If there were only two protestant denominations in addition to the Catholic church there would be two protestant denominations too many. By the way the 40,000 figure is of protestant origin not Catholic. This same protestant seminary [Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary] is a highly regarded minister mill among protestants. Their website boosts of having students from 96 denominations from 38 countries.

Last edited by inkaneer; Aug 7, '09 at 1:42 pm.
  #69  
Old Aug 7, '09, 2:24 pm
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

[quote=Cachonga;5540364]In regard to respecting Mary (or even my own mother), I do respect them both! I respect them enough to not want them to be misrepresented. Nobody has been able to explain to me how a sinless person can make a sin offering (which Mary did), show me where Scriptures indicates Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, or show me scripture that tells us Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven. If I said I believed these things, I’d be a liar, which (besides being a sin) would dishonor both God and Mary.
[quote]

Let us not misunderstand the sin offering. A sin offering was no made because a sin was committed by the one making the offering. The sin offering was a Mosaic Law command. The Mosaic Law permeated the lives of the Jewish people so that even everyday actions like giving birth required an offeroing to remind the people asto why they were under the Law. Consider the consequences of your position. If Mary committed a sin by giving birth then God, who commanded mankind to multiply, is guilty of causing them to sin. Is that what you want to say? Or consider this. if Mary's sin was because she had an issue of Blood during childbirth then who was the creator of man's reproductive process? God was. So God in creating man's reproductive process programmed man to sin. Either way you have God as a sinner. Nice going there!

Quote:
The idea that Joseph and Mary had other children comes from (1) reading Scriptures in context, and (2) looking at what scripture does not say. First of all, in Matt 13:54-56 (as well as Mark 6:2-3), we see that Jesus was in His home town, among people who grew up with Him. They clearly identify Joesph and Mary, then the brothers (James, Joses (or Joseph in some translations), Simon and Judas), as well as at least 2 unnamed sisters. There is no mention of any other relatives! Where is the mention of Mary, the wife of Alpheus? It’s not there! In light of this lack of any mention of other relatives, how can anyone think that these are not actual children of Joseph and Mary (short of “Sacred Tradition”)? You might notice I didn’t even get into the debate over whether or not ‘adelphos’ means sibling or kinsman. In regard to what the Scriptures do not say, I think it is very relevant that there is no clear indication that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. When Gabriel told her she was to be the mother of Messiah, why didn’t he also tell her that she would remain a virgin forever? Why, when he informed Joseph of the miraculous conception, didn’t he also instruct Joseph to keep her a virgin her entire life? Instead, the angel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife (see Matt 1:20). Since there is no clear evidence that Mary was (or even had to remain) a virgin her entire life, it seems unreasonable to think that a married woman wouldn’t have normal relations with her husband. Here’s something to think about – when the angel told Samson’s mother about him, she was told that “no razor shall touch his head” (Judges 13:5). Why did the angel give this instruction? Because it was necessary for God’s plan at that time! Why didn’t the angel tell Mary that she would remain a virgin her entire life? Because it wasn’t necessary for God’s plan of salvation!

The fact that there were other people with the same name doesn’t prove anything. When I was in college, I had so many friends named Mike that we identified them by their major (Computer Mike, PE Mike, Business Mike, etc…).

<continued...>
Tell me where does the Bible call anyone, other than Jesus a child of Mary? It doesn't.
The idea that Mary had other children is based solely on someone being called the brother of Jesus. This relies entirely on a strict interpretation of the Greek word 'adelphos' as meaning a sibling brother. But how reliable is this? Paul calls the Apostle James the Lord's brother. That is an absolute impossibility. There were only two Apostles named James. One was the brother of John and son of Zebedee. The other was the son of Alphaeus. See Matthew 10:2,3 for verification on this. Neither one was the son of Joseph. As for Mary the wife of Alphaeus she is mentioned in Joh 19:25

"So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene."

Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person. It was not uncommon for Jewish men in the first century to have two names. We only need look to Saul/Paul or Petros/Cephas. Now notice the verse also says that Mary's sister was named Mary also. So are you saying that Mary's parents had two daughters and named both of them Mary? That is what a strict interpretation of 'Adelphe' which is the Greek word used there for sister would tell you. The whole thing is absurd. Here is what Apostolic Tradition says about this and it makes a whole lot more sense. Alpaeus/Clopas is a sibling brother to Joseph. Both of them married women named Mary [a common name] That makes the two women named Mary sisters [today we would say sisters-in-law] That makes James the son of Alphaeus the Lord's brother [today we would say cousin]. In addition Apostolic tradition tells us that Joseph was a widower. If that is the case he would have children by his first wife they would be regarded as Jesus' brothers and sisters. Thus there is no reason to impart a strict interpretation of the Greek words 'adelphos/adelphe' to mean a sibling brother or sister.
  #70  
Old Aug 7, '09, 4:43 pm
Cachonga Cachonga is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 1,053
Religion: former roman catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
There is only one Catholic church. As I understand it the World Christian Encyclopedia counts each country as a separate denomination. While the Orthodox Church is divided ethnically [Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.] the Catholic church is not since we are united under one shepherd, the pope. But the main point is not whether there are 40,000 protestant denominations or not. If there were only two protestant denominations in addition to the Catholic church there would be two protestant denominations too many. By the way the 40,000 figure is of protestant origin not Catholic. This same protestant seminary [Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary] is a highly regarded minister mill among protestants. Their website boosts of having students from 96 denominations from 38 countries.
Let's try this again. Did you get this information from a web site? If so, what is the URL? If not, did you get it from a book? If so, what is the name of the book? I want to see for myself how it identifies these denominations (not that I don't trust you, but I don't trust this line of argumentation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Let us not misunderstand the sin offering. A sin offering was no made because a sin was committed by the one making the offering. The sin offering was a Mosaic Law command. The Mosaic Law permeated the lives of the Jewish people so that even everyday actions like giving birth required an offeroing to remind the people asto why they were under the Law. Consider the consequences of your position. If Mary committed a sin by giving birth then God, who commanded mankind to multiply, is guilty of causing them to sin. Is that what you want to say? Or consider this. if Mary's sin was because she had an issue of Blood during childbirth then who was the creator of man's reproductive process? God was. So God in creating man's reproductive process programmed man to sin. Either way you have God as a sinner. Nice going there!
Where do you get this information? I have asked a couple of different Rabbi's about this offering. This is generally made for unknown sin (the idea is that the woman may have cursed God, her husband, or others during the pain of giving birth). I can hear it now - Mary had no pain in childbirth! That is irrelevant (even if true). The fact remains she made a sin offering!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkaneer
Tell me where does the Bible call anyone, other than Jesus a child of Mary? It doesn't.

<and following...>
I guess context is irrelevant to you. Could "adelphos" ever mean "brother" (sibling)? If not, then I guess you think Simon Peter and Andrew are cousins (or something). And if "adelphos" CAN mean "brother" (sibling), then why couldn't Jesus have siblings (other than the "infallible" teaching of the Church)?

How many women at the cross? Let's look - "So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother (1), and his mother's sister (2), Mary the wife of Clopas (3), and Mary Mag'dalene (4)." (John 19:25). Other than the Church's need to have Mary the wife of Clopas related to Mary, why doesn't this interpretation work?
__________________
If you don't enjoy what you're doing, you're doing something wrong!
  #71  
Old Aug 8, '09, 7:06 am
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Posted by inkaneer
There is only one Catholic church. As I understand it the World Christian Encyclopedia counts each country as a separate denomination. While the Orthodox Church is divided ethnically [Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.] the Catholic church is not since we are united under one shepherd, the pope. But the main point is not whether there are 40,000 protestant denominations or not. If there were only two protestant denominations in addition to the Catholic church there would be two protestant denominations too many. By the way the 40,000 figure is of protestant origin not Catholic. This same protestant seminary [Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary] is a highly regarded minister mill among protestants. Their website boosts of having students from 96 denominations from 38 countries.

Cachonga writes: "Let's try this again. Did you get this information from a web site? ... I want to see for myself how it identifies these denominations (not that I don't trust you, but I don't trust this line of argumentation)."

REPLY: Yes I got it from a website Just enter Gordon Conwall into a search engine and a number of them will come up. or you can go here:

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary News - Topix


Posted by inkaneer
Let us not misunderstand the sin offering. A sin offering was not made because a sin was committed by the one making the offering. The sin offering was a Mosaic Law command. The Mosaic Law permeated the lives of the Jewish people so that even everyday actions like giving birth required an offering to remind the people asto why they were under the Law. Consider the consequences of your position. If Mary committed a sin by giving birth then God, who commanded mankind to multiply, is guilty of causing them to sin. Is that what you want to say? Or consider this. if Mary's sin was because she had an issue of Blood during childbirth then who was the creator of man's reproductive process? God was. So God in creating man's reproductive process programmed man to sin. Either way you have God as a sinner. Nice going there!

Cachonga writes: "Where do you get this information? I have asked a couple of different Rabbi's about this offering. This is generally made for unknown sin (the idea is that the woman may have cursed God, her husband, or others during the pain of giving birth). I can hear it now - Mary had no pain in childbirth! That is irrelevant (even if true). The fact remains she made a sin offering!"

REPLY: The Law made so clear the idea of sin on the OT Jewish people that they made offerings for "unknown sins". Tell what is an unknown sin? I have asked different protestants who maintain that since Mary made a sin offering that she must have sinned to tell me what sin she committed. Here is their replies:

1. She gave birth.
2. She had an issue of blood during childbirth.
3. She profaned the temple by going there for Jesus circumcision during her days of purification.

The first two are absurd. Since God is the creator of man He designed the reproductive process. Arguing #1 or # 2 means God designed man to sin or God created man to sin. Number three is unscriptural. The scriptures never say that Jesus was circumcised in the Temple. Luke clearly states in his Gospel in verse 2:22

22 "And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord"

Luke goes on to say in verse 2:39:

39 "And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth."

There in explains the reason for the sin offering. It was required by law. Now, All this occurs in the time of the old covenant. The new covenant doesn't begin for another 33 or so years. So if she does not obey the law Mary sins because that is direct disobediance to the God. If she performs everything in accord with the law as Luke says she did then some protestant is going to claim she was a sinner. And all of this because she gave birth to Jesus? Do you really think giving birth to Jesus was a sin?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkaneer
Tell me where does the Bible call anyone, other than Jesus a child of Mary? It doesn't.

<and following...>

cachonga writes: "I guess context is irrelevant to you. Could "adelphos" ever mean "brother" (sibling)? If not, then I guess you think Simon Peter and Andrew are cousins (or something). And if "adelphos" CAN mean "brother" (sibling), then why couldn't Jesus have siblings (other than the "infallible" teaching of the Church)?"

REPLY: Yes context is important but so is correct exegesis. I pointed out several instances where the Greek word 'adelphos' was used generically. Yet you insist on applying a strict interpretation on the word when it comes to Jesus. Seems to me you are interjecting your own beliefs into the scriptures. That is not correct exegesis. There are other explanations for these brethren that are very reasonable. The Eastern churches generally say these brethren are children of Joseph by a prior marriage while the Western church generally say they were relatives maybe cousins as with James BUT there is not one christian writers from the early church who says these were children of Mary. That position was held only by heretics.

Cachonga writes: "How many women at the cross? Let's look - "So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother (1), and his mother's sister (2), Mary the wife of Clopas (3), and Mary Mag'dalene (4)." (John 19:25). Other than the Church's need to have Mary the wife of Clopas related to Mary, why doesn't this interpretation work?

REPLY: Read Matthew's account of this. He says of the women:

"55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee." Mt27:55-56

Matthew doesn't mention Mary the Mother of Christ. But he does mention Mary the mother of James and Joseph. This James was the son of Alphaeus/Clopas so this Mary is his wife. Mark adds to this in his gospel:

"40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me, [Mark 15:40]

So here it is. This other Mary is the mother of the Apostle called James the Younger [also called James the Less] who Matthew identified as none other than the son of Alphaeus/Clopas and is the James that Paul says he saw and called the Lord's brother. That makes James the Youger a cousin to Jesus and not a sibling brother. The other James, James the Greater, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee.

Did you really think we made this stuff up? Sola scriptura has robbed you of important insight into the scriptures.
  #72  
Old Aug 8, '09, 9:08 am
Cachonga Cachonga is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 1,053
Religion: former roman catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
REPLY: Yes I got it from a website Just enter Gordon Conwall into a search engine and a number of them will come up. or you can go here:

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary News - Topix
I googled "Gordon-Conwell", and I searched it and the suggested "News - Topix". What I found can be verified here (see, this is how you show your sources, OK?). It indicates that the main source (even though it came from the Gordon-Conwell web site) is the World Christian Encyclopedia (which I already addressed in a previous post). You can also click on the World Christian database link in the left hand column (also found here) and see that there are nowhere near 40,000 protestant denominations (BTW, neither source labels these as Protestant denominations, so you can stop using that argument as well). I would suggest that you either give me the URL to your source (if it's different than what I've already discovered), or stop spreading the lie that there are 40,000 Protestant denominations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
REPLY: The Law made so clear the idea of sin on the OT Jewish people that they made offerings for "unknown sins". Tell what is an unknown sin? I have asked different protestants who maintain that since Mary made a sin offering that she must have sinned to tell me what sin she committed. Here is their replies:

<and following...>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga
Cachonga writes: "Where do you get this information? I have asked a couple of different Rabbi's about this offering. This is generally made for unknown sin (the idea is that the woman may have cursed God, her husband, or others during the pain of giving birth). I can hear it now - Mary had no pain in childbirth! That is irrelevant (even if true). The fact remains she made a sin offering!"
If you would read what I wrote, you wouldn't be asking this question. According to the Rabbi's I talked to about this, it is for unknown sin. There is a possibility that the woman may have cursed God, her husband, or others during the pain of giving birth. What part of this statement makes you think I'm referring to the 3 replies you suggested? How are those replies even considered "unknown sin"? As for your explanation that "It was required by law.", does God take pleasure in sacrifices? You might want to review Hebrew 10:5-8. The point here is that God takes these sacrifices seriously, and for a reason. A turtledove was killed as a sin offering. If Mary was without sin, then the turtledove died needlessly, and God would be responsible. (BTW - this same sacrifice was required for women as part of their purification following their monthly cycle. See Lev 15:25-30).
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
REPLY: Yes context is important but so is correct exegesis. I pointed out several instances where the Greek word 'adelphos' was used generically. Yet you insist on applying a strict interpretation on the word when it comes to Jesus. Seems to me you are interjecting your own beliefs into the scriptures. That is not correct exegesis. There are other explanations for these brethren that are very reasonable. The Eastern churches generally say these brethren are children of Joseph by a prior marriage while the Western church generally say they were relatives maybe cousins as with James BUT there is not one christian writers from the early church who says these were children of Mary. That position was held only by heretics.
Speaking of proper exegesis, you still didn't answer the questions I asked. Let's try again!

1. Could "adelphos" ever mean "brother" (sibling)?
2. If "adelphos" CAN mean "brother" (sibling), then why couldn't Jesus have siblings (other than the "infallible" teaching of the Church)?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
REPLY: Read Matthew's account of this. He says of the women:

<and following...>
Yes, there were many women at the cross. However, the point I was trying to make (and I apologize that I didn't do a very good job of it) was that Mary the wife of Clopas was not the sister (or sister-in-law) of Mary the mother of Jesus. Your claim that the James Paul saw was James the Younger is strange, expecially since Paul clearly identifies him as James the brother of the Lord. Of course you would point out that this James was an Apostle, and I will respond, "So was Paul". Just because the Lord's brothers (half-brothers) weren't believers before His crucifixion, doesn't mean they didn't become believers (and Apostles) afterwards. I think this might be straining the topic, but maybe you could explain John 7:2-5 ("Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. And his brethren said to him: Pass from hence, and go into Judea; that thy disciples also may see thy works which thou dost. For there is no man that doth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, manifest thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said to them: My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, that the works thereof are evil." DR).
__________________
If you don't enjoy what you're doing, you're doing something wrong!
  #73  
Old Aug 9, '09, 8:55 am
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

cachonga writes: "I googled "Gordon-Conwell", and I searched it and the suggested "News - Topix". What I found can be verified here (see, this is how you show your sources, OK?). It indicates that the main source (even though it came from the Gordon-Conwell web site) is the World Christian Encyclopedia (which I already addressed in a previous post). You can also click on the World Christian database link in the left hand column (also found here) and see that there are nowhere near 40,000 protestant denominations (BTW, neither source labels these as Protestant denominations, so you can stop using that argument as well). I would suggest that you either give me the URL to your source (if it's different than what I've already discovered), or stop spreading the lie that there are 40,000 Protestant denominations."

REPLY: You will note that that site gives a different number from the one I gave. The problem was I could not locate the original site and substituted one I did find. Since then I located it in the Library section but now you need a password to acess. But let's just assume you are correct and the information comes from the WCE. The point I want to stress is that the number, be it 40,000 or 4,000 or 400 or 40 or even 4 is not important. What is important is that Jesus prayed that His followers be one as He was one with the Father. The number therefore should be 1. Protestantism is the antithesis of what Jesus prayed for.


Originally Posted by inkaneer
REPLY: The Law made so clear the idea of sin on the OT Jewish people that they made offerings for "unknown sins". Tell what is an unknown sin? I have asked different protestants who maintain that since Mary made a sin offering that she must have sinned to tell me what sin she committed. Here is their replies:

<and following...>


Cachonga writes: "Where do you get this information? I have asked a couple of different Rabbi's about this offering. This is generally made for unknown sin (the idea is that the woman may have cursed God, her husband, or others during the pain of giving birth). I can hear it now - Mary had no pain in childbirth! That is irrelevant (even if true). The fact remains she made a sin offering!"

If you would read what I wrote, you wouldn't be asking this question. According to the Rabbi's I talked to about this, it is for unknown sin. There is a possibility that the woman may have cursed God, her husband, or others during the pain of giving birth. What part of this statement makes you think I'm referring to the 3 replies you suggested? How are those replies even considered "unknown sin"? As for your explanation that "It was required by law.", does God take pleasure in sacrifices? You might want to review Hebrew 10:5-8. The point here is that God takes these sacrifices seriously, and for a reason. A turtledove was killed as a sin offering. If Mary was without sin, then the turtledove died needlessly, and God would be responsible. (BTW - this same sacrifice was required for women as part of their purification following their monthly cycle. See Lev 15:25-30)."

REPLY: Well you first mistake was asking Jewish rabbi's. Listen, if these guys knew the right answers they would not be Jewish rabbi's, they would be christians. An unknown sin is no sin. If you accuse someone of sin then you have to state what the sin is that the person is guilty of. But to say someone is guilty of an unknown sin is ludicrous. Again the old Jewish adage comes to mind that whenever two Jews are present there are at least three opinions. But none of them need be correct. Leviticus 12:1-8 is the OT reference for this 'sin offering'. There verse 7 makes it clear what the sin offering is for. It is for her flow of blood.

"and he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood." [Leviticus 12:7]

So what is the sin? A flow of blood that is present in childbirth? Apparently it is the flow of blood because in Levticus 15 we see the same thing for a woman with a longer than expected menstrual cycle. She also has to make a sin offering. So if having a flow of blood is a sin then God designed women to sin. How does that fit with an all loving and righteous God? It doesn't fit at all. So there has to be another reason for the "sin offering" other than actual sin and it is found in the Jewish concept of ritual cleanliness or purity. A person could be considered to be unclean for any number of things and required purification. Child birth was one of them. The Law, given by God, imposed duties on the unclean person that must be followed to be regarded as clean. To disobey the Law of God was a sin. Mary obeyed the Law of God as Luke so states.
  #74  
Old Aug 9, '09, 8:57 am
inkaneer inkaneer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2,076
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
REPLY: Yes context is important but so is correct exegesis. I pointed out several instances where the Greek word 'adelphos' was used generically. Yet you insist on applying a strict interpretation on the word when it comes to Jesus. Seems to me you are interjecting your own beliefs into the scriptures. That is not correct exegesis. There are other explanations for these brethren that are very reasonable. The Eastern churches generally say these brethren are children of Joseph by a prior marriage while the Western church generally say they were relatives maybe cousins as with James BUT there is not one christian writers from the early church who says these were children of Mary. That position was held only by heretics.

Cachonga writes: "Speaking of proper exegesis, you still didn't answer the questions I asked. Let's try again!

1. Could "adelphos" ever mean "brother" (sibling)?
2. If "adelphos" CAN mean "brother" (sibling), then why couldn't Jesus have siblings (other than the "infallible" teaching of the Church)?"

REPLY:
1. Yes 'adelphos' could mean a sibling brother.
2. Jesus could not have siblings because (a) other parts of scripture argue against it and
(b) proper exogesis demands that a strict interpretation of a word can only be used if
that word is always used in accord with the strict interpretation. That can not be said
for adelphos unless you are willing to admit the Bible contains error when Paul calls
James the Lord's brother or when Jesus calls all the apostles Peter's brothers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
REPLY: Read Matthew's account of this. He says of the women:

<and following...>

cachonga writes: "Yes, there were many women at the cross. However, the point I was trying to make (and I apologize that I didn't do a very good job of it) was that Mary the wife of Clopas was not the sister (or sister-in-law) of Mary the mother of Jesus. Your claim that the James Paul saw was James the Younger is strange, expecially since Paul clearly identifies him as James the brother of the Lord. Of course you would point out that this James was an Apostle, and I will respond, "So was Paul". Just because the Lord's brothers (half-brothers) weren't believers before His crucifixion, doesn't mean they didn't become believers (and Apostles) afterwards. I think this might be straining the topic, but maybe you could explain John 7:2-5 ("Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. And his brethren said to him: Pass from hence, and go into Judea; that thy disciples also may see thy works which thou dost. For there is no man that doth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, manifest thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said to them: My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, that the works thereof are evil." DR)."

REPLY: Scripture is clear that Mary the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas was related to Mary the Mother of Jesus in some way. So I reject entirely your position that she wasn't. I think you are reading to much into the fact there is a comma there. That comma is not in the scriptures and is only in the English translation. The Scriptures say they were sisters but like I said it is doubtful that parents would name two children the same name. Here is where Apostolic Tradition tells us something that the Written Tradition doesn't. As for the James that Paul saw there is nothing strange about it. James was, in modern language, a cousin of the Lord being the son of the brother of Joseph. [You, of course, know that Jesus was regarded as the son of Joseph even though biologically He wasn't.] But in first century time he would be regarded as a brother even if not a sibling. As for the passage you quoted the brethren there are relatives of Jesus. And from their discourse with him they are older relatives. Jewish families had a definite pecking order and younger siblings don't tell older ones what to do. So since Jesus was Mary's first born these 'brethren' can not be siblings of Jesus. Then there is the entire deal at the cross when Jesus gives the care of His mother to John, the youngest of the Apostles. That duty was for the youngest not the oldest. If Jesus had siblings they would have cared for her and Jesus would not need to go outside the family. And once again no where does scripture identify anyone other than Jesus as a child of Mary. So your entire position falls flat on its face.
  #75  
Old Aug 10, '09, 4:10 am
wbarquez wbarquez is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 39
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
If what you say is true, then perhaps you could show some documentation that shows who was arguing about the immaculate conception or bodily assumption right before the pope made it a dogma? Could you show me some documentation that proves these were taught by the Apostles? Before answering that, it might be a good idea to agree on some things of importance. I believe (and I’m guessing you would as well), that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. That being the case, wouldn’t you agree that, just like Sacred Scripture, all “Sacred Tradition” would have been given before the death of the last Apostle? Now, if we can agree on this, then can you show me any proof that ANY of the Apostles ever taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived or bodily assumed? If Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition come from the same source (the Holy Spirit), then doesn’t it stand to reason that Sacred Tradition would be as unchangeable as the written Word? If Sacred Tradition is unchangeable, then wouldn’t any “development theory” contradict these Sacred Traditions? If you don’t agree on any of the preceding, then I think we need to visit that before going on.
You have yet to convince me that our Lord mandated the Apostels to write everything down and that everything that is written by the Apostles themselves should be the only thing that we should believe. Is that in the Bible? Even if I tell you about the Marian doctrine of Hypolytus of Rome who was the disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna who in turn was the disciple of John the Apostle, or the Marian doctrine of Irenaeus of Lyon who was the disciple of the same Polycarp of Smyrna who was the disciple of John the Apostle who took Mary into his home, you would not believe me because you would be looking for that doctrine in the Bible in the writings of John himself, right? Still that brings me back to my original question. Where is that kind of "written-only teaching" in the Bible so as to exclude Sacred Tradition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
You’re right, it’s hard to take 2 Thes 2:15 out of context … unless you don’t look at what the context is. Verses 13 &14 says, “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth: To which he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Seems clear to me that Paul was discussing the Gospel. Where, in the Gospel, do you find Mary’s perpetual virginity (or any of the other Marian dogmas)?
You are explaining it away, my friend. Paul was talking about the TRADITIONS (PARADOSIS in Greek), "which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Now, does it say you should hold on to the traditions only that are found in the espistle only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
It is not important to my salvation. As I said above (and I have said before), my problem is that the Catholic Church has made these things a dogma, with an anathema pronounced against anyone who denies them. In effect, because I do not believe these dogmas, I am under the anathema of the Church, and therefore cannot be in right standing with the Church. Technically, if I went to mass and tried to receive communion, the priest would HAVE to refuse me because of the anathema. How can I possibly have fellowship with you under these circumstances?
You cannot eat your cake and have it too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cachonga View Post
The idea that Joseph and Mary had other children comes from (1) reading Scriptures in context, and (2) looking at what scripture does not say. First of all, in Matt 13:54-56 (as well as Mark 6:2-3), we see that Jesus was in His home town, among people who grew up with Him. They clearly identify Joesph and Mary, then the brothers (James, Joses (or Joseph in some translations), Simon and Judas), as well as at least 2 unnamed sisters. There is no mention of any other relatives! Where is the mention of Mary, the wife of Alpheus? It’s not there! In light of this lack of any mention of other relatives, how can anyone think that these are not actual children of Joseph and Mary (short of “Sacred Tradition”)? You might notice I didn’t even get into the debate over whether or not ‘adelphos’ means sibling or kinsman. In regard to what the Scriptures do not say, I think it is very relevant that there is no clear indication that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
And Scriptures is supposed to give us the whole family of Jesus! How come they did not name his sisters if that was such a big deal? The no mention of any other relatives does not mean that there are no other relatives. You do not have the complete revelation entrusted to the Church that is why you spin doctrines out of the Biblical text where it is silent.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8240Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
4998CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: James_OPL
4342Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3830SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3554Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: James_OPL
3219Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3203Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3100Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3043For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Thomas Choe



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:33 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.