markomalley

Both you and Garth are right. And you can both add Hebrews, Jude, and 2&3 John, as well.

When St. Peter wrote this, what was considered scripture? And what was considered "prophecy of the scripture"? Think about it really carefully...the Canon of the New Testament would not be established for a couple of hundred years after he wrote those words... And who established that Canon of the Scriptures? Who determined that the 2nd Epistle of St. Peter was Canonical and that the Didache wasn't? When did that determination happen?Fact of the matter is that they were individual writings, written by different authors, inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church determined at the Council of Hippo (in the province of Carthage) which of the apostolic writings were to be considered scriptural and which writings were not...in 393 AD! Not my opinion. Just a historical fact that can be verified by multiple sources... Again, you should be reading the word of the prophet Isaias in the context it was written, rather than yanking random verses out an applying them to your gain. Doing the latter is a real mishandling of the scriptures: Isaias 8 16 Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples. 17 I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. 19 And when they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn. 21 They will pass through the land, greatly distressed and hungry; and when they are hungry, they will be enraged and will curse their king and their God, and turn their faces upward; 22 and they will look to the earth, but behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be thrust into thick darkness. By the way, the KJV mistranslation of verse 20, above, misrepresents the word "shachar" -- it should be translated "dawn." (look at a Hebrew-English interlinear if you doubt it). And if you misapply the words of Isaias by taking them out of context (the context clearly shows that he was talking about the people of Israel consulting diviners and mediums), then you are handling the Word of God deceitfully (cf 2 Cor 4:2), not "rightly handling the word of truth" (cf 2 Ti 2:15). I understand what you're trying to say. You are trying to wrap a fundamentalist theology that misapplies the scriptures around a veneer of Messainic Judaism. Honestly, I am not impressed. But I will pray for your soul. Because I do not perceive that you are doing this out of evil, but out of being deceived. No I don't. Thanks. I think a man who thought he was wiser than the Paraclete decided out of pride took some precipitous actions and his followers have been trying to justify those actions for 500 years since. But thanks for asking. (and think of the inconsistency of your last statement)

Rachel, I am actually surprised by what you just wrote there. By your screen name and by the lingo you like applying in your posts, I would take you to be making yourself to be in a Messianic Jewish denomination. Now I don't know if you are a convert or if you were born to it; regardless, I'd think you'd be at least familiar enough with the Mishnah (part of the Babylonian Talmud) to recognize what I wrote. The section of the Scriptures I was citing was Marcus 7:1-13: 7 1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?" 6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." 9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; 11 but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) -- 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do." 14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." 16 17 And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man." The Mishnah is the first part of the Talmud. It captures the oral rabbinical tradition and was compiled during the Rabbinic age (around the second century). It is divided into six major divisions, or Seders. Seder Kodashim is the fifth seder and deals with "Holy Things," such as sacrifices, the Temple worship, and dietary laws. It is further divided into eleven subsections, or Tractates. Arakhin is the fifth out of 11 tractates witthin Seder Kodashim and deals with a person dedicating their value to the Temple or dedicating a field. The verses (Mishnayot) of Tractate Arakhin that I quoted outline that property dedicated to the temple could not be used to repay debts to other individuals. The citation from Leviticus that I mentioned outlined the rules for returning property and forgiving debts during the Jubilee year (once every 50 years). How does that relate to Marcus 7:1-13 (or Matthias 15 as a parallel reference)? Certain of the Pharisees abused the tradition of Qorban (the term used when property was dedicated to the Temple, as described in Tractate Arakhin) to avoid having to take care of their responsibilities to their parents (thus violating the fourth commandment of the Decalogue). They would pronounce their possessions as Qorban (dedicated to the Temple), thus making it not usable to take care of their obligations to parents or other family members or debtors, and then would get it returned to them under the next Jubilee Year (after their parents were dead and gone). Jesus rightfully condemned this misuse of the oral tradition...in order to violate the commandment of God. Sorry for using the Talmudic references, though. I was trying to put it in terms that you, as a Messianic Jew, would appreciate. Any mumbo-jumbo was your variety of mumbo-jumbo, not mine. Hopefully the above clarifies it for you.

Rachel, Sometimes Firefox really ticks me off. This is one of those times. I had worked up a post that took me over an hour to research (I like to have my names and dates correct when I post...particularly in Doctrinal). It spoke to the intent of Luther and Zwingli as far as the canonicity of the books of the NT and then went through the rationale and validity of all the books in the OT. Unfortunately, it's late and I don't have time to re-do my work (as I said before, I don't have the time I'd like to do this stuff). Bottom line is that the Prots stripped out about 7 books out of the OT: Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (and parts of the Book of Daniel). I'm sorry, I wish I had time to re-do the post I was working on, but I don't.

Glossolalia is a gift that has been given to the Church from time to time throughout recorded history. Of course, you can read about it in the primitive Church throughout the Acts and in the Pauline epistles. However, several Church fathers documented this up through Nicene times and, in fact, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Francis Xavier is said to have preached in tongues unknown to him and St. Vincent Ferrer while using his native tongue was understood in others. From this last phenomenon Biblical glossolaly differs in being what St. Gregory Nazianzen points out as a marvel of speaking and not of hearing. Exegetes observe too that it was never used for preaching, although Sts. Augustine and Thomas seem to have overlooked this detail. As to the 2nd Vatican Council (1962-1965), the subject of glossolalia is not explicitly mentioned in any of the published documents. However, there is an allusion to the subject of charismata in several places: From the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium), chapter 1, paragraph 4, 4. When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth9 was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that He might continually sanctify the Church, and thus, all those who believe would have access through Christ in one Spirit to the Father.10 He is the Spirit of Life, a fountain of water springing up to life eternal.11 To men, dead in sin, the Father gives life through Him, until, in Christ, He brings to life their mortal bodies.12 The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple.13 In them He prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons.14 The Church, which the Spirit guides in way of all truth15 and which He unified in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits.16 By the power of the Gospel He makes the Church keep the freshness of youth. Uninterruptedly He renews it and leads it to perfect union with its Spouse. 3* The Spirit and the Bride both say to Jesus, the Lord, "Come!"17 From the Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes), chapter 4, paragraph 23, 23. Although every disciple of Christ, as far in him lies, has the duty of spreading the Faith,1 Christ the Lord always calls whomever He will from among the number of His disciples, to be with Him and to be sent by Him to preach to the nations (cf. Mark 3:13). Therefore, by the Holy Spirit, who distributes the charismata as He wills for the common good (1 Cor. 12:11), He inspires the missionary vocation in the hearts of individuals, and at the same time He raises up in the Church certain institutes2 which take as their own special task the duty of preaching the Gospel, a duty belonging to the whole Church. Likewise, from the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), chapter 1, paragraph 3, 3. The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself. They are consecrated for the royal priesthood and the holy people (cf. 1 Peter 2:4-10) not only that they may offer spiritual sacrifices in everything they do but also that they may witness to Christ throughout the world. The sacraments, however, especially the most holy Eucharist, communicate and nourish that charity which is the soul of the entire apostolate.3 One engages in the apostolate through the faith, hope, and charity which the Holy Spirit diffuses in the hearts of all members of the Church. Indeed, by the precept of charity, which is the Lord's greatest commandment, all the faithful are impelled to promote the glory of God through the coming of His kingdom and to obtain eternal life for all men-that they may know the only true God and Him whom He sent, Jesus Christ (cf. John 17:3). On all Christians therefore is laid the preeminent responsibility of working to make the divine message of salvation known and accepted by all men throughout the world. For the exercise of this apostolate, the Holy Spirit Who sanctifies the people of God through ministry and the sacraments gives the faithful special gifts also (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7), "allotting them to everyone according as He wills" (1 Cor. 12:11) in order that individuals, administering grace to others just as they have received it, may also be "good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:10), to build up the whole body in charity (cf. Eph. 4:16). From the acceptance of these charisms, including those which are more elementary, there arise for each believer the right and duty to use them in the Church and in the world for the good of men and the building up of the Church, in the freedom of the Holy Spirit who "breathes where He wills" (John 3:8). This should be done by the laity in communion with their brothers in Christ, especially with their pastors who must make a judgment about the true nature and proper use of these gifts not to extinguish the Spirit but to test all things and hold for what is good (cf. 1 Thess. 5:12,19,21).4 But to say that this is "new doctrine" or that they were "allowed" to speak in tongues only after Vatican II is sort of a misstatement. Vatican II restates and reframes doctrine that has been in existence since the time of the apostles. St Irenaeus spoke of it in the third century. St John Chrysostom spoke of it in the fifth. St Thomas Aquinas spoke of it in the thirteenth. In fact, St. John of the Cross (16th Century), in his book Ascent to Mt Carmel (Book 3, Chapter 30), states: t now behoves us to treat of the fifth kind of good thing wherein the soul may rejoice, which is the supernatural. By this term we here understand all the gifts and graces given by God which transcend natural virtue and capacity and are called gratis datae. Such as these are the gifts of wisdom and knowledge which God gave to Solomon, and the graces whereof Saint Paul speaks — namely, faith, gifts of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, knowledge and discernment of spirits, interpretation of words and likewise the gift of tongues. 2. These good things, it is true, are also spiritual, like those of the same kind of which we have to speak presently; yet, since the two are so different, I have thought well to make a distinction between them. The practice of these has an intimate relation with the profit of man, and it is with a view to this profit and to this end that God gives them. As Saint Paul says: ‘The spirit is given to none save for the profit of the rest;’ this is to be understood of these graces. But the use and practice of spiritual graces has to do with the soul and God alone, and with God and the soul, in the communion of understanding and will, etc., as we shall say hereafter. And thus there is a difference in their object, since spiritual graces have to do only with the Creator and the soul; whereas supernatural graces have to do with the creature, and furthermore differ in substance, and therefore in their operation, and thus of necessity the instruction which we give concerning them differs also. 3. Speaking now of supernatural graces and gifts as we here understand them, I say that, in order to purge ourselves of vain joy in them, it is well here to notice two benefits which are comprised in this kind of gift — namely, temporal and spiritual. The temporal benefits are the healing of infirmities, the receiving of their sight by the blind, the raising of the dead, the casting out of devils, prophesying concerning the future so that men may take heed to themselves, and other things of the kind. The spiritual and eternal benefit is that God is known and served through these good works by him that performs them, or by those in whom and in whose presence they are performed. While the current "Charismatic Renewal" of which your friends spoke is rather recent (it began in 1967 at Duquesne University and has spread worldwide), the point is that it is not new. Again, unless VPW was around in the 16th century, I doubt that he would have had any influence on St. John of the Cross.

When St. John wrote this in his Apocalypse (22:18-19), there was no compiled collection known as the Bible. Therefore, the context must be referring simply to the vision that he received from the Lord. However, if you wish to apply it in that context, I would suggest that you would wish to apply it to your Protestant friends whose forefathers emasculated the Holy Scriptures during the 16th Century AD.

Rachel, OK, and...your point is what??? I suggest you actually read the context (Marcus 7:1-13) and then try to understand exactly what Jesus was saying. To make sure you understand it fully, I would also suggest you pull out your Mishnah and read Seder Kodashim...particularly Tractate Arakhin (and look especially at 6:2 through 7:5). Then compare this to Leviticus 25:10ff. Once you do the above and actually attempt to understand what our Lord was talking about, then we can talk about it.

Rachel, I, frankly, don't post as much as I used to, as I am sort of time limited. So I won't address everything, but here are a couple of points: On Sunday worship. This has gone on since the first century. The Epistle of Barnabas, written in 74 AD, states the following: Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." Exodus 20:8; Deuteronomy 5:12 And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifies, saying, "Behold, today will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This means: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "You shall sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God has sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Isaiah 1:13 You perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens. So if you want to call Sunday worship a Catholic innovation, I guess you could. St. Barnabas (one of the apostles) was a Catholic, after all. As to Easter versus Passover, that is a false analogy. The analogue is not Easter. The analogue is the Celebration of the Lord's Passion (i.e., Good Friday). This day commemorates the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb without spot or blemish, not Easter. Easter celebrates something that was not part of the Old Covenant, and that is the resurrection. As to pork, I would refer you to a vision by St. Peter (the first Catholic Pope), documented in Acts 10: 9 The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common." 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. Or you have the Canons of the Council of Jerusalem (the first Catholic ecumenical council) (Acts 15:23ff) "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." As to Christmas, the official name is the Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord (in most of the romance languages, to include Latin, it is some variant of "natale" -- or Nativity). We have other feasts and solemnities commemorating other key events in our Lord's life: His circumcision, His presentation at the Temple, His baptism, His ascension, His transfiguration, His resurrection, etc. Do we know with certainty when any of these dates were? (In fact, do you know that a significant percentage of Catholics celebrate His nativity on Jan 6th?) You may or may not agree with the idea of commemorating key dates; that's your business. You mention Christmas trees. The Christmas tree is actually NOT a Roman invention; it is an invention of the French and is barely 500 years old. I, personally, have never met somebody who worships a Christmas tree. If you take a look at Jeremiah 10, you will read: 10 1 Hear the word which the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel. 2 Thus says the LORD: "Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, 3 for the customs of the peoples are false. A tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. 4 Men deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. 5 Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good." 6 There is none like thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. 7 Who would not fear thee, O King of the nations? For this is thy due; for among all the wise ones of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is none like thee. 8 They are both stupid and foolish; the instruction of idols is but wood! 9 Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz. They are the work of the craftsman and of the hands of the goldsmith; their clothing is violet and purple; they are all the work of skilled men. 10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation. 11 Thus shall you say to them: "The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens." 12 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. 13 When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses. 14 Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish. 16 Not like these is he who is the portion of Jacob, for he is the one who formed all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance; the LORD of hosts is his name. A casual reading of this section make it clear that what is being spoken of is an idol...the object of worship, not a seasonal decoration. Please note verse 5, which I highlighted. As to the Catholic Church re-writing the Bible, the collection of writings that was compiled into the Canon of the New Testament by the Catholic Church...those who wrote the individual writings were either Catholic Bishops (St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, St. James, St. Matthew, St. Jude) or scribes who worked with Catholic Bishops (in the case of St. Mark and St. Luke), so I would phrase it more like the Catholic Church wrote the Bible...not re-wrote it. Having replied to all of your anti-Catholic rants, I come back to the original point. PFAL is NOT reflected in Catholic doctrine. I gave you links to the two simplest (and fully searchable) documents that compile Catholic doctrine, so if you can show me in those two Catholic documents where some of the unique points about PFAL are discussed, I will be more than happy to consider your reference (and, as others on this board can attest, I will be happy to admit I'm wrong, if, in fact, I am).

I am a lector and a catechist. No, PFAL has no part of Catholic Doctrine. This link takes you to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church This link takes you to a Compendium of that Catechism (a far shorter version -- about 150 pages vice 900) Please feel free to show me where PFAL appears in either text. If it isn't in the above, you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it's part of the doctrine of the Church. Thank you.

Things are going well. Just busy as **** (see sign above).

Groucho, Marvelous thread and a good idea. However, somehow I think this picture fits in here somewhere: (I'd call myself a cynic, but that screen name is already taken)

ROTFLMAO Next thing you know, he'll claim that VPW was a permanent deacon at Holy Rosary Parish in St. Mary's City, OH.

Exc Love you to death. We've seen this stuff go in cycles. You're a stalwart here and are very needed. Your life tells people an important message. Even if the n00bs don't know it, you are critical to this place.

Justin Porto, an American information technology contractor working in Iraq, has launched a program using soccer balls to generate goodwill in the country. Porto plans to distribute soccer balls on his daily runs through the International Zone or Green Zone in Bagdad. But first he needs soccer balls sent to him in Iraq. He is calling his project Soccer for American and Iraqi Friends, or SAIF. Porto, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, works for MPRI, a division of L-3 Communications Inc. of New York. He was featured in the Dec. 10 Last Byte column in Washington Technology. Porto works as an adviser to the Iraqi director general of communications for the Ministry of Defense. (snip) The rest of the article is here: http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online...referrer=google There is an address in the article if you'd like to help him out in his goodwill mission.

(yawn)

Why don't you just celebrate the Nativity of Jesus Christ and that's that. After all, that's what Christmas is about. (Note: whether He was born on Dec 25 or Jan 6 or Sep 11 or Jun 8 is irrelevant. The fact that He was born is the important part)

Actually, you illustrate what I'm talking about perfectly...(glad I'm familiar with the example that you used) Johann Sebastian Bach was born from Johann Ambrosius Bach and had a brother Johann Christoph Bach and had sons Johann Christian and Johann Christoph. In Germany up to about the mid 19th century, it was common to assign three names: the Christian name, the Secular name, and the Surname. The Christian name was given to a patron saint (in this case St. John). The secular name was what people commonly used to identify a person...and, obviously, the surname identified the family.' (You can take a look here: http://www.rieperoots.com/MYPAGES/Names/customs.html for some corroborating facts) Sort of like what some families do with middle names in this country. The point is that people wouldn't say: Johann and Johann...they'd say Christoph and Christian! Let's assume your middle name was 'Blake.' If somebody said 'Hey, Blake, come here!' you likely wouldn't even turn your head. Now, to my knowledge, in the Hebrew culture of the time, a person was identified by nnnn, son (daughter) of nnnnn, from ccccc. of the tribe of nnnnn. Under those circumstances, there wouldn't be any way to distinguish between two siblings who had the same name. (Note that Magdalene, as in Mary Magdalene, identifies the town from where she came: Magdala...a town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee).

I agree. However, I just consider, in the absence of convincing evidence otherwise, common sense. The George Forman example is so funny because it's ludicrous.

I always love tools and technology...until I get the credit card bill! :asdf: Now I ask for nothing ("What do you want for Christmas, honey" "Please, please get me nothing...I can't afford to pay for my present!")

A fine question. I do not recall any examples in scripture. Or in the limited amount of Patristic writings that I've read. Not to say that there's not an example...but I can't think of any one.

The Bible...its all right there.

Just a couple of things to think about (I'm not going to bring up early Christian extra-Biblical writings here, just scripture). According to the folks who maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary, adelphos/adelphe can refer to brothers, step-brothers, cousins, or other familial relationship. According to the folks who maintain that Mary had other children, adelphos/adelphe can refer to blood brothers/sisters only, right? Let's look at the verses that the 'brethren of the Lord' crowd uses as their proof-text: Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph (Ioses) and Simon and Judas? Mat 13:56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?" (the account in Mark parallels this...) Let's now take a look at a different narrative (the crucifixion): According to the account in Matthew and Mark: Mat 27:55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; Mat 27:56 among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Ioses), and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee. Mark 15:26 says: 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, According to the account in John: Jhn 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. Jhn 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Jhn 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. --------------------- Analysis: According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus had (adelphos) James, Joseph (Ioses), and Simon and Judas...(all, by the interpretation of the 'brethren' crowd, the children of Mary) According to the crucifixion account in John, there were three women particularly menitoned: Jesus' mother (Mary), Mary, the wife of Cloas (and sister -- adelphe -- of Mary, the mother of Jesus), and Mary Magdalene. According to the crucifixion accounts in Matthew there were Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (Ioses), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. According to the crucifixion account in Mark, there were Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James the lesser and Joseph (Ioses) and Salome. The mother of James and Joseph in Matthew 27 is NOT Mary, Jesus' mother...(I find it inconceivable that the author would say the 'mother of James and Joseph' without mentioning Jesus...if they were siblings) Therefore, from harmonizing the above, it appears that there were (at least) four women mentioned: Mary, Jesus' mother Mary, James' and Joseph's mother and Clopas' wife, and the sister (adelphe) of Mary, the mother of Jesus Zebedee's wife (and mother of the James and John) (Salome?) Mary Magdalene So now, let us assume that adelphos/adelphe MUST be blood brothers/sisters. -->This means that the parents of Mary (Jesus mother) and Mary (James and Joseph's mother) were both given the same first name? Was their father George Foreman? OK, well maybe adelphe could talk about female cousins, but adelphos MUST refer to blood brothers...(not bloody likely, but what the heck) -->This means that two cousins (Mary and Mary) would have to name not just ONE of their children the same name, but TWO of their children the same name. What are the odds? I think we can assume that these two Marys knew each other for most of their lives...the odds even get worse... The only way that these verses can be reasonably harmonized is IF adelphos/adelphe can refer to relatives of whatever order, not just blood siblings. And that contention (that adelphos can ONLY refer to blood brothers, not cousins, or other relatives, and that adelphe can ONLY refer to blood sisters, not cousins, or other relatives) is the sole basis upon which the 'brethren of the Lord' crowd bases its arguments. Maintain perpetual virginity and you have a very unique situation... Maintain 'brethren of the Lord' and you have to do all sorts of linguistic contortions to make it work... You decide...(sorry for lifting your line, Wordwolf)

I have been absolutely swamped and have had to completely curtail any Internet activity for a while now. Hopefully I will get a chance to post again in the not too distant...but for now, I'm just plain scarce.

From the San Luis Obispo Tribune: The mother of a San Luis Obispo man who died after an attempted organ donation at Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center last year claims she never gave hospital officials consent to take her son off life-support and was misinformed when agreeing to the organ harvest, according to a wrongful death lawsuit. Rosa Navarro also alleges in her June 29 civil lawsuit that a transplant surgeon misrepresented himself as her son’s doctor, an allegation the surgeon’s attorney strongly denies. She also said she agreed to the organ donation only because she believed her son had no chance of survival. (snip) Ruben Navarro, who was dying of a rare metabolic disorder, had been on life support for four days and was expected to die. His mother agreed to donate his organs, and the California Transplant Donor Network dispatched its transplant team to Sierra Vista. Rosa Navarro said during an interview from her Oxnard home Tuesday that when she arrived at the hospital she asked about her son’s condition. She said a hospital nurse told her to speak with the doctor. “He came over and approached me and said I’m in charge of Ruben,” Navarro said of Roozrokh, who was part of the surgical team from San Francisco dispatched by Oakland-based Organ Transplant Donor Network. “I asked him, ‘Doctor could you do anything for my boy?’ and he said, ‘Oh, no. Oh no… There’s nothing I can do for a patient like him.’ ” Navarro said through sobs that Roozrokh asked her if she planned to watch him disconnect her son from life-support. “He didn’t even ask me, ‘What do you want me to do Ms. Navarro? Do you want me to keep him on the machine or whatever?’ ” Navarro said. Roozrokh’s attorney, M. Gerry Schwartzbach, told The Tribune on Tuesday that his client never spoke with Rosa Navarro and was not in charge of her son’s medical care. “He did not have any conversation with her with regard to taking Ruben off the respirator. … Dr. Roozrokh was in the Bay Area,” Schwartzbach said. “I feel very bad for Ms. Navarro because she’s going through a great deal, but unfortunately someone misled her because she never met (Roozrokh) and she never spoke to him. That is absolutely clear.” Schwartzbach said a local physician made the decision to remove Ruben Navarro from life support. (snip) An operating-room nurse reported that standard medical procedures weren’t followed when Navarro was taken off life support. The lawsuit alleges Roozrokh ordered Ruben Navarro be given lethal doses of morphine and Ativan, an accusation also reported as a finding in a federal investigation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The report showed an intensive care nurse gave Ruben Navarro 220 milligrams of morphine and 80 milligrams of Ativan. (snip) He (the hospital spokesman) did say a surgeon contracted with the donor network assumed responsibility for Navarro in violation of hospital policy, which requires a doctor to be credentialed by the hospital to treat a living patient. (snip) So, if the allegations are true, did the doctor even do anything wrong? Or, since the kid was going to die anyway, was it OK to cause him to OD so as to speed the availability of his organs?

There is very little way to reason with them. 1 Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. It takes the Holy Spirit to open the eyes. Not your wisdom. Not your skills in debate. So the best thing you can do is to pray for them. (From the gsc token Catholic)