Which one is a Cult? A or B?

[metis]

So here's my question: since you're not sure if Jesus, as described in the scriptures, really existed.

Misleading question. I certainly believe Jesus existed, but what I don't believe in is scriptural inerrancy. How many times do I have to write this before you get this into your head?

What about Peter? Do you think he existed as stated, or maybe you're not sure about that also?

I have no doubt he existed, but I don't blindly believe that everything written about him must supposedly be 100% accurate.

What about Peter? Is that a no biggie to you also, as to whether he was one of Jesus disciples, and yet do you say you believe the church rests on Peter and not Jesus? hmm, just wondering if you think Peter really existed as stated in the Bible, thanks.

Why are you being so dishonest? Why can't you even understand what's been clearly written by me?

I never stated nor implied that the Church just "rests on Peter"? Why would you be so low as to post that? Doesn't your church teach you the difference between right and wrong? Why do you continue to misrepresent what I post and where I'm coming from? Why, why, why???

And I guess the question to myself is why I even give you the time of day if you are going to either misread or misrepresent what I post?

 

[YoursTrue]

Misleading question. I certainly believe Jesus existed, but what I don't believe in is scriptural inerrancy. How many times do I have to write this before you get this into your head?

I have no doubt he existed, but I don't blindly believe that everything written about him must supposedly be 100% accurate.

Why are you being so dishonest? Why can't you even understand what's been clearly written by me?

I never stated nor implied that the Church just "rests on Peter"? Why would you be so low as to post that? Doesn't your church teach you the difference between right and wrong? Why do you continue to misrepresent what I post and where I'm coming from? Why, why, why???

And I guess the question to myself is why I even give you the time of day if you are going to either misread or misrepresent what I post?

I misrepresent what you say? Hardly. If so, let's go over it.
When you say you don't "blindly believe" everything written about him must be 100% accurate, right?
Let's put it this way: if a person doesn't believe the scriptures as passed on through the centuries, he doesn't believe what's written. I'm not speaking of a word here and there. So let's see this:
Perhaps some believe (meaning they're just not sure) that he did not die but had a substitute. By that I mean those within the folds called Christian. Yes, I won't ask you what YOU believe since it's clear to me that you're just not sure about the veracity of the scriptures. Again, let's be honest. MANY would say that Moses did not exist. And yet I have read if I recall correctly that you said Jesus spoke of myths about things like the Flood, and Moses, right? Similarly, I was also reading more about the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin. It is a dogma. It's a "big deal." Not a "no biggie." Now you do know what dogma is, right? I looked it up, btw. I recall the word incontrovertible was used to describe what is considered a dogma by the Catholic Church. INCONTROVERTIBLE.

 

[YoursTrue]

Misleading question. I certainly believe Jesus existed, but what I don't believe in is scriptural inerrancy. How many times do I have to write this before you get this into your head?

I have no doubt he existed, but I don't blindly believe that everything written about him must supposedly be 100% accurate.

Why are you being so dishonest? Why can't you even understand what's been clearly written by me?

I never stated nor implied that the Church just "rests on Peter"? Why would you be so low as to post that? Doesn't your church teach you the difference between right and wrong? Why do you continue to misrepresent what I post and where I'm coming from? Why, why, why???

And I guess the question to myself is why I even give you the time of day if you are going to either misread or misrepresent what I post?

Sooo, does the church rest on Peter???? If not, please do elucidate. Or if yes, you might want to also elucidate. Obviously no stress to respond.

 

[YoursTrue]

Were you there to see them? Pervert!

Again, I don't lose any sleep over this as so much in the scriptures simply cannot be verified. Frankly, I'm pretty sure they did have sexual relations, but then I wasn't there to observe, nor does it really change anything important one way or the other.

My view: Whatever happened, happened. What is important to me is the basic point of what Jesus taught, such as in the Sermon On the Mount.

Oh, come on. HOW DO YOU KNOW HE GAVE THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT? And let's say that's true, even though you evidently believe it's disgusting (perverted?) to think that his mother and adoptive father had sexual relations after his birth, right? Anyway, our discussion has been interesting, thanks. While I have enjoyed the discussion with you to an extent, I will detach myself from further questioning or challenge to you or expressly asking you for answers and justification for your views. Thanks.

 

[metis]

And yet I have read if I recall correctly that you said Jesus spoke of myths about things like the Flood, and Moses, right? Similarly, I was also reading more about the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin. It is a dogma. It's a "big deal." Not a "no biggie." Now you do know what dogma is, right? I looked it up, btw. I recall the word incontrovertible was used to describe what is considered a dogma by the Catholic Church. INCONTROVERTIBLE.

I studied Catholic theology in college and have taught it to adults for 15 years now and counting. I post this not to brag but to just say that I do know what I'm talking about, and I've been very patient with you. However, that has now been worn out.

Since you are all too willing keep asking questions that I have repeatedly answered, this will be our last conversation. However, since I'm a man who doesn't hold grudges nor hate anyone, Vaya con Dios.

 

[Dogknox20]

I studied Catholic theology in college and have taught it to adults for 15 years now and counting. I post this not to brag but to just say that I do know what I'm talking about, and I've been very patient with you. However, that has now been worn out.

Since you are all too willing keep asking questions that I have repeatedly answered, this will be our last conversation. However, since I'm a man who doesn't hold grudges nor hate anyone, Vaya con Dios.

.
metis I hope all is well... I also am a Catholic.. My question is... Why don't they use ... 1 John 5:16 as proof for Purgatory!?
1 John 5:16
If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

If a person dies with a sin that does NOT lead to death they will not go to Gahanna and Satan because they are NOT Satan's Child they are NOT dead! But they also can't enter heaven because they have sin!
PRAYING for this person' soul with..... a sin that does not lead to death and God will give them life!

 

[metis]

.
metis I hope all is well... I also am a Catholic.. My question is... Why don't they use ... 1 John 5:16 as proof for Purgatory!?
1 John 5:16
If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

If a person dies with a sin that does NOT lead to death they will not go to Gahanna and Satan because they are NOT Satan's Child they are NOT dead! But they also can't enter heaven because they have sin!
PRAYING for this person' soul with..... a sin that does not lead to death and God will give them life!

The answer is that we do.

Hope all is well with you, so take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

I studied Catholic theology in college and have taught it to adults for 15 years now and counting. I post this not to brag but to just say that I do know what I'm talking about, and I've been very patient with you. However, that has now been worn out.

Since you are all too willing keep asking questions that I have repeatedly answered, this will be our last conversation. However, since I'm a man who doesn't hold grudges nor hate anyone, Vaya con Dios.

That's fine that you wish to end the conversation. But what you have proven to me is valuable. Meantime, I have learned that a dogma according to the Catholic church is incontrovertible, such that the assertion (such as perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ). Anyway, thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

.
metis I hope all is well... I also am a Catholic.. My question is... Why don't they use ... 1 John 5:16 as proof for Purgatory!?
1 John 5:16
If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

If a person dies with a sin that does NOT lead to death they will not go to Gahanna and Satan because they are NOT Satan's Child they are NOT dead! But they also can't enter heaven because they have sin!
PRAYING for this person' soul with..... a sin that does not lead to death and God will give them life!

There are to be new heavens and -- a new earth. Period. New heavens and a new earth. (Revelation 21.) Since there are teachers who teach doubt about the veracity of the scriptures, it leaves many wondering -- meantime, anyway -- have a nice evening.
Oh, and dogma does mean according to the Catholic church that the teaching the Mary did not have any other children (is always a virgin) is said to be incontrovertible. Incontrovertible.
"According to the Catechism, “The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obligating the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these” (No. 88)." Marian dogmas: Ancient beliefs of the Church - Our Sunday Visitor (osvnews.com)

 

[Dogknox20]

The answer is that we do.

Hope all is well with you, so take care.

.
metis Thank you for your reply...
I must say; In my many years of self study I have never heard of anyone using . 1 John 5:16 as proof for Purgatory!? ALSO I add this question..

The "Rich Man and Lazarus" story Jesus told.... Why don't they use this story as another scripture for being sanctified after death!?
*First The Rich man addresses Abraham as "Father" if he was In Gehenna his father would not be Abraham but Satan! And Abraham address the Rich Man as "Son" Abraham would not address the Rich Man as Son if he was a child of Satan!
Galatians 3:7
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.

*Second.. The Rich Man has Compassion... If he was in Gehenna he would be full of hate, only thinking of himself! The Rich Man wants to send Lazarus to warn his brothers about the place they would end up!

*Third... Jesus tells us; there might be some who would want to visit the Rich Man but there is a gulf separating them! WHO...
metis who would want to visit someone in Gehenna the home of Satan BUT some might wish to visit someone being "Sanctified"!

*Fourth... No one can cross over.. BUT Jesus is NOT just anyone he is God Jesus could cross over and retrieve this sanctified soul!

The Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[Dogknox20]

There are to be new heavens and -- a new earth. Period. New heavens and a new earth. (Revelation 21.) Since there are teachers who teach doubt about the veracity of the scriptures, it leaves many wondering -- meantime, anyway -- have a nice evening.
Oh, and dogma does mean according to the Catholic church that the teaching the Mary did not have any other children (is always a virgin) is said to be incontrovertible. Incontrovertible.
"According to the Catechism, “The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obligating the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these” (No. 88)." Marian dogmas: Ancient beliefs of the Church - Our Sunday Visitor (osvnews.com)

YoursTrue Right you are .. Mary is a perpetual virgin! No other children but she ONLY has the Adopted Children of God!

All IN the Generational family of Mary honor her as blessed! Today alone Mary has over 1.2 billion Children "ALL ADOPTED" she remains a Virgin! NEVER...

YoursTrue never mind the billions now in heaven with her!
Holy Mother Church today also has over 1.2 billion Children but again she also remains a virgin! Her (The Bride of Christ) many CHILDREN are the re-formed children of Adam!
She; The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Bride of Jesus will take Adams corrupted Children and forms them "Anew" with the washing waters of Baptism! Then the Groom sends the Gift of the Holy Spirit thus her children are re-Born of "Fire & Water"!
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue Right you are .. Mary is a perpetual virgin! No other children but she ONLY has the Adopted Children of God!

All IN the Generational family of Mary honor her as blessed! Today alone Mary has over 1.2 billion Children "ALL ADOPTED" she remains a Virgin! NEVER...

YoursTrue never mind the billions now in heaven with her!
Holy Mother Church today also has over 1.2 billion Children but again she also remains a virgin! Her (The Bride of Christ) many CHILDREN are the re-formed children of Adam!
She; The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Bride of Jesus will take Adams corrupted Children and forms them "Anew" with the washing waters of Baptism! Then the Groom sends the Gift of the Holy Spirit thus her children are re-Born of "Fire & Water"!
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

At this point, DK20, all I can say is (1) the Bible clearly indicates that Mary had given birth to children after Jesus was born. And (2) while you may believe the dogma of the Catholic church about Mary, there are many who call themselves Christian who do not grab onto that proposition.
"The problem facing theologians who want to maintain Mary's perpetual virginity is that the New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception of Jesus and mentions his brothers, (adelphoi), with Mark and Matthew recording their names and Mark adding unnamed sisters.[11][12] The word adelphos only very rarely means other than a physical or spiritual sibling, and the most natural inference is that Joseph and Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.[13]"
I hope you take notice of this, but it really doesn't matter, and I thank you for your conversation. As we know, it is a DOGMA, DOGKNOX, or the Catholic church, which makes the claim it is INCONTROVERTIBLE. But that no longer matters because of the Bible itself --
"Mary's perpetual virginity thus became a guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ, despite its shaky scriptural foundations.[41] Notwithstanding the acceptance of the earliest reformers, modern Protestants have largely rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary and it has rarely appeared explicitly in confessions or doctrinal statements.[42]"
So anyway, have a nice day, thanks for conversation it's been interesting. Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia

 

[Dogknox20]

At this point, DK20, all I can say is (1) the Bible clearly indicates that Mary had given birth to children after Jesus was born. And (2) while you may believe the dogma of the Catholic church about Mary, there are many who call themselves Christian who do not grab onto that proposition.
"The problem facing theologians who want to maintain Mary's perpetual virginity is that the New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception of Jesus and mentions his brothers, (adelphoi), with Mark and Matthew recording their names and Mark adding unnamed sisters.[11][12] The word adelphos only very rarely means other than a physical or spiritual sibling, and the most natural inference is that Joseph and Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.[13]"
I hope you take notice of this, but it really doesn't matter, and I thank you for your conversation. As we know, it is a DOGMA, DOGKNOX, or the Catholic church, which makes the claim it is INCONTROVERTIBLE. But that no longer matters because of the Bible itself --
"Mary's perpetual virginity thus became a guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ, despite its shaky scriptural foundations.[41] Notwithstanding the acceptance of the earliest reformers, modern Protestants have largely rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary and it has rarely appeared explicitly in confessions or doctrinal statements.[42]"
So anyway, have a nice day, thanks for conversation it's been interesting. Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia

.
You are wrong..
Brother means an extended relative or even a spiritual brother. An example has been set... In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.”!
YoursTrue Question were Abraham and Lot Brothers?! How do you know?!

Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8.

YoursTrue the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, he is a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a true brother.
There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.”
Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph.
YoursTrue QUESTION... Is James a BROTHER of Jesus?! What does your bible tell you?! Do the any of the two James in the bible have Mary as Mother?!

James the apostle and Jesus were not true brothers. The Jews did not have a word for cousin!

YoursTrue In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.”

Exodus 13:1-2 The firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

YoursTrue The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

 

[YoursTrue]

.
You are wrong..
Brother means an extended relative or even a spiritual brother. An example has been set... In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.”!
YoursTrue Question were Abraham and Lot Brothers?! How do you know?!

Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8.

YoursTrue the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, he is a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a true brother.
There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.”
Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph.
YoursTrue QUESTION... Is James a BROTHER of Jesus?! What does your bible tell you?! Do the any of the two James in the bible have Mary as Mother?!

James the apostle and Jesus were not true brothers. The Jews did not have a word for cousin!

YoursTrue In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.”

Exodus 13:1-2 The firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

YoursTrue The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

I am not wrong. To begin with, Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after the birth of Jesus. It doesn't matter in this case if there is another Mary. The mother of Jesus (1) was not the "mother of God," and (2) she bore other children by the regular means after the birth of Jesus, The scriptures themselves show us that.
Again -- "The problem facing theologians who want to maintain Mary's perpetual virginity is that the New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception of Jesus and mentions his brothers, (adelphoi), with Mark and Matthew recording their names and Mark adding unnamed sisters.[11][12] The word adelphos only very rarely means other than a physical or spiritual sibling, and the most natural inference is that Joseph and Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.[13]"
(Anyway, have a nice day...)

 

[YoursTrue]

.
metis Thank you for your reply...
I must say; In my many years of self study I have never heard of anyone using . 1 John 5:16 as proof for Purgatory!? ALSO I add this question..

The "Rich Man and Lazarus" story Jesus told.... Why don't they use this story as another scripture for being sanctified after death!?
*First The Rich man addresses Abraham as "Father" if he was In Gehenna his father would not be Abraham but Satan! And Abraham address the Rich Man as "Son" Abraham would not address the Rich Man as Son if he was a child of Satan!
Galatians 3:7
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.

*Second.. The Rich Man has Compassion... If he was in Gehenna he would be full of hate, only thinking of himself! The Rich Man wants to send Lazarus to warn his brothers about the place they would end up!

*Third... Jesus tells us; there might be some who would want to visit the Rich Man but there is a gulf separating them! WHO...
metis who would want to visit someone in Gehenna the home of Satan BUT some might wish to visit someone being "Sanctified"!

*Fourth... No one can cross over.. BUT Jesus is NOT just anyone he is God Jesus could cross over and retrieve this sanctified soul!

The Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Metis, DK20, is a TEACHER of religion in various places. He TEACHERS THESE THINGS. To groups, religiouis groups at that. So...whether you agree with him or not doesn't matter since he is a t-e-a-c-h-e-r of religious subjects. And -- Catholic. Now, now, maybe it's a quick dip in purgatory, maybe Jesus wasn't using an illustration maybe he didn't have half brothers and sisters by means of his parents. Maybe the protestants who believe from the scriptures that Jesus had half brothers and sisters are -- wrong???????????? What do you think? C'mon, man...

 

[YoursTrue]

.
You are wrong..
Brother means an extended relative or even a spiritual brother. An example has been set... In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.”!
YoursTrue Question were Abraham and Lot Brothers?! How do you know?!

Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8.

YoursTrue the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, he is a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a true brother.
There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.”
Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph.
YoursTrue QUESTION... Is James a BROTHER of Jesus?! What does your bible tell you?! Do the any of the two James in the bible have Mary as Mother?!

James the apostle and Jesus were not true brothers. The Jews did not have a word for cousin!

YoursTrue In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.”

Exodus 13:1-2 The firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

YoursTrue The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

DOGMA, DogKnox20, has the definition of being incontrovertible. That means that it is absolutely true. No question about it. Go tell that to those scholars who don't believe that Mary remained a virgin forever. (Because of what the SCRIPTURES (not St. Jerome) say.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Misleading question. I certainly believe Jesus existed, but what I don't believe in is scriptural inerrancy. How many times do I have to write this before you get this into your head?

I have no doubt he existed, but I don't blindly believe that everything written about him must supposedly be 100% accurate.

Why are you being so dishonest? Why can't you even understand what's been clearly written by me?

I never stated nor implied that the Church just "rests on Peter"? Why would you be so low as to post that? Doesn't your church teach you the difference between right and wrong? Why do you continue to misrepresent what I post and where I'm coming from? Why, why, why???

And I guess the question to myself is why I even give you the time of day if you are going to either misread or misrepresent what I post?

Scriptural inerrancy is not the question. Because copyists make mistakes and there are no original texts available. But to say or believe that the accounts of resurrections or the Exodus from Egypt is based on fables, errant or otherwise, is discounting what is written as the inspired word of God.

 

[sojourner]

Scriptural inerrancy is not the question. Because copyists make mistakes and there are no original texts available. But to say or believe that the accounts of resurrections or the Exodus from Egypt is based on fables, errant or otherwise, is discounting what is written as the inspired word of God.

Not on the least. Inspiration can most certainly come in the form of myth, metaphor, and poetry that is not factual. Truth can be spoken in many ways.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not on the least. Inspiration can most certainly come in the form of myth, metaphor, and poetry that is not factual. Truth can be spoken in many ways.

The Bible explains God-inspired utterances as well as the idea of demon-inspired utterances.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible explains God-inspired utterances as well as the idea of demon-inspired utterances.

That has nothing to do with literary devices.