leoxiii

As God is the Author of both Faith and Science, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. What does create a conflict is misplaced Faith and bad Science. The controversy today basically boils down to atheism vs. theism. Been going on since the Garden of Eden. Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

No not really, but what you are failing to understand is that James, the brother of Jesus, was not one of Jesus disciples. He is the one who wrote the book of James. So yes, there was a third person, a man named James who was the brother of Jesus. The thing that is so disturbing is that Catholics defend the perpetual virginity of Mary myth in order to protect the integrity of the roman catholic "church," and not because it is really biblically true. This has nothing to do with actual truth, but with protecting an institution that has deluded itself into thinking that it cannot be challenged nor be wrong on any point. It is biblically true. Otherwise I would not defend it. Paul clearly calls this James an Apostle. You want to do some sleight of hand and say he is only a disciple. It is not I, my friend, who am ignoring a biblical truth here.

What about when a person interprets the words of Scripture? Do you really think that Jesus left His Church with no way to know if the words of Scripture were being interpreted properly or not? Do you really think that Jesus founded a Church in which contradictory teachings could not be resolved? Listen to the words of Jesus: Matthew 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Does He really mean that we can search around until we find a church that does not treat us as a heathen or a publican? HE left us the HOLY SPIRIT HE left us prophets, teachers and preachers. Men will always reject HIS teachings, HIS people will not. HOw they view themselves and what they do is not addressed in this passage, only the actions of the church are addressed. If one church kicks them out, they may go to another church. That is not for anyone but them to deal with (and the other church) How many churches did Jesus found? You keep telling me that all believers have the Holy Spirit guiding them in discerning doctrine. But I never seen evidence of that. All I see, to quote Martin Luther, is that there are as many different doctrines as there are heads out there. One church kicks them out as heretics, and another welcomes them with open arms as true believers. You cannot seriously ask me to believe the Holy Spirit is enlightening and guiding in both cases.

No, it isn't. Israel is the Israel of God. Luke 20:9 And he began to speak to the people this parable: A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: and he was abroad for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard. Who, beating him, sent him away empty. 11 And again he sent another servant. But they beat him also, and treating him reproachfully, sent him away empty. 12 And again he sent the third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13 Then the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be, when they see him, they will reverence him. 14 Whom when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: This is the heir, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15 So casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come, and will destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others. Which they hearing, said to him: God forbid. 17 But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone, shall be bruised: and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 19 And the chief priests and the scribes sought to lay hands on him the same hour: but they feared the people, for they knew that he spoke this parable to them. The Vineyard is Israel. The Judaizers got the heave-ho and the Christians were given the Vineyard in their place.

Better yet, what should we look for if the theory that the earth is in the center of the universe is true? An even spattering of matter all around us? Bingo!

Is it your intention to dismiss it from the Scriptures like Luther did with the Deuterocanonical Books?

And you know that your own translation is free from bias because........... Original Greek. I use the Interlinear bible as much as possible, especially when versions differ. To set your feelings at ease, the KJV and NKJV add to scripture just as much as I have noticed your Douay-Rheims changes words. Languages do not translate word for word. They translate more like idea for idea. When someone makes a translation of the Bible, they choose the words in their own language that best express what they think the author is trying to say in the original language. There is no translation of the Bible in existence that does not add and subtract "words" from the Scriptures. For instance, Luther added the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 because, as he said, the verse did not make any sense in the German language without it. Now, suppose you have a guy living in the 20th century who goes to university to study Koine Greek, and an educated guy from the 2nd century who was raised from birth speaking Koine Greek as his first language. Who would you rely on to inform you what a difficult phrase in Koine Greek meant? You must not be familiar with an Interlinear bible. IT is not like a translation at all and is very hard to read. The words are written as they were spoken. Here is a link for the Interlinear Bible online: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterli.../NTpdf/joh3.pdf John 3:5 reads that one must be "generated" or "begotten" "out of water". That is not birth. When a person is born they are not generated or begotten out of water. No doubt in my mind that the Douay-Rheims in saying "one must be born again of water" is the closest translation of the text that can be had in English.

This is why using a Concordance is so dangerous. That bolded part is merely Mr. Strong's biased opinion, and cannot be garnered from the word "baptizmo". It is a very novel tradition which goes back but a few years which Mr. Strong is applying to the word.

Then the ova, which Jesus took to form His human nature, was at one time under the dominion of the devil. I utterly reject that. For if the flesh of Jesus was at any time under the dominion of the devil, then He was not the perfect and spotless Lamb of God. You are placing your belief on human knowledge and understanding. God can create how He wants to create. You make it sound like He is bound to human understanding of the reproductive system. Is He God or not? Yes. He could have done this thing any way He wanted. But He chose to be "made of a Woman" (Gal. 4:4). Therefore, He tells us in Scripture that He took His flesh from a Woman. So, what kind of Woman did He take His flesh from? I believe that His dignity and majesty requires this Woman to be sinless. And is not the human understanding of the reproductive system something that God created? He is certainly not bound by that, but He was well aware of the Incarnation when He created the human reproductive system. So, why would He not have created it for His purposes? In fact, does not the whole creation of male and female and His designation as Father point decidedly to the Incarnation?

Let me give you one example. Colossians 1:19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. Matthew 10:3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, In context, Paul is speaking of the 12 Apostles. He says that James, whom he calls the brother of the Lord, is one of the 12 Apostles. There are only 2 Apostles named James, and neither of them have Joseph for their father. Only 3 options are available: 1). "brother" here does not mean "of the same mother and father" 2). Mary was an adulteress 3). a third Apostle named James must be invented. I go with #1.

Then the ova, which Jesus took to form His human nature, was at one time under the dominion of the devil. I utterly reject that. For if the flesh of Jesus was at any time under the dominion of the devil, then He was not the perfect and spotless Lamb of God.

But you treat Mary as such. My friend, the worship I give to God and the veneration I give to the Blessed Virgin Mary are two completely different things. I worship God as my Creator. I venerate Mary as the crowning glory of God's creation. I worship God as my Saviour. I venerate Mary as the one whom God has loved above all creation. I worship God as my Father. I venerate Mary as the Woman He chose to be His Mother. God freely gave His Son as a ransom for the world, and Mary freely gave Her Son in obedience to God. That is the obedience we need to emulate. You might say She had no choice, but did She not have free will like every other human being? Did God become Incarnate in Her womb by force? Did He take Her Son to the Cross by force? No. I do not believe He did. I believe that to everything God did, Mary gave Her unwavering consent. From Mary's lips we are given the two greatest examples of the relationship a Christian should have with God: "Let it be done to me according to Thy word," and "do whatever He tells you."

3). The greatest Scripture scholar the world has ever seen, Saint Jerome, disagrees with you. His Scriptural proof for the perpetual virginity of Mary is irrefutable. Read his letter "Against Helvidius". 2). It is not insane to say that the human nature of Jesus could have never at any time been under the dominion of the devil. For if it was, then He could not have been the perfect Lamb of God. 1). And yet there are some things about Saints Peter and Paul that we should not emulate. But there is nothing about Mary that we should not emulate. About #1 - There is so little about Mary in scripture that nobody can even take an educated guess about her lifestyle. Compared to Peter adn Paul, what is said about her is nothing. Everything about Mary that people think today is nothing but folklore. About #3, that is nothing but personal opinion concerning Jerome. Why is it that you praise him for his writings of Mary but say nothing about his claim that the Apocrypha not being scripture. How is it that anyone can claim anything about Mary when scripture is almost completely silent on her? 1). We believe a lot of things as factual that are not contained in the Scriptures. Do you really think that after the Ascension people did not take an interest in Mary? Where do you think Saint Luke got all his narratives about Jesus' childhood? 3). It is not my personal opinion that Saint Jerome disproves the erroneous opinion that Mary had other children using Scripture alone. He does it and he does it in an irrefutable way. Read it and see if you do not agree.

that's it? No scripture saying that we have to do physical baptisms and NOT doing so is disobedient? We all agree that the "one baptism (Eph 4:5) is the Holy Spirit's but we must do a second/two? Scripture says one but youre fixed on two? If you believe in the baptism in Mark 16:16 then you better follow out the order of "healing the sick (v18)" and NOT doing that is being disobedient to the Lord(v20). It's not tempting the Lord because v20 says it is "His will!" So what hospital emergency room have you walked into to heal the sick? You haven't. You're just as bad as the other member here that fails to make a case. You guys are clinching to the word "baptism" on Mark 16:16 but are neglecting to see what comes along with that. You said you believe it but are failing to do it. Don't hide under "tempting" because it is "His will" to do it Mark 16:20. Well, I was asking questions but got a remark on America's Christianity? ha ha. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. 19 And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. 20 But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed. Where are your signs, Believer?

Here is the Gospel that I accept: Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. That verse is not saying that Baptism is necessary for savation. Again, you are preaching a false gospel. Why did Jesus mention Baptism in that verse? Because it shows an act of obedience. To proclaim HIM as LORD and not follow HIS commandments would indicate a spiritual issue. The Baptism doesn't save, it confirms salvation. Why doesn't the scripture state, "he that is not baptised is not saved"? It does. John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. You misquoted the scripture again. And your degree in ancient languages is from where? OH PLEASE!!! I love how you made a point of cutting out the true quote of the scripture. So let me add it in for those who read this. The scripture read "must be born of water and THE SPIRIT" Not "born again" of water and THE SPIRIT. I use the Bible. That is all. If you have so much greater understanding of the original text than the millions who have interpretted it before you, than good for you. Me, I quote the scriptures as they are in the Bible. There is no place in that sentence in the original greek where a word exists that can be translated "AGAIN". Now that I know what and who you are, you can believe what you want and misquote scripture as much as you want. Good luck with that. SHAKING THE DUST OFF MY SHOES NOW. No. You quote the Scriptures as they are in your translation of the Bible, just as I do. You put your faith in your translator as much as I do. You trust men for the Canon of Scripture just as I do. I am no expert in Koine Greek and neither are you. My translation is from Saint Jerome's Vulgate. He was the greatest Scripture scholar that ever lived. I trust that God led him in his translation. Let me give you just one example: There are four manuscripts of Saint Mark, all of equal authority, all with different endings. Saint Jerome decided the longer ending was the correct one, included it in the Vulgate, and now every Bible in existence contains the longer ending of Saint Mark. See? That is just one reason why I trust Saint Jerome.