Zone1 Question for the Catholics: is This True?

[Meriweather]

So you did your own studies--contradictory of the clear language--but because I have not followed YOUR studies particularly I know nothing? Interesting.

Then:

Is the Bible truly open to individual interpretation, or can it be taken as written?

I said I followed the same research you did; then I went back and followed the research that had made up the studies I had been reading. You can delve into that same research. Did I say you know nothing? No. I said there is research that can be studied on both perspectives. I studied and followed the research on both. I have been saying you, if you wished, could do the same. If you are happy with what you already found, then why go on?

I have not been talking about individual interpretation. I have been noting what everyone knows happens when an original account is translated from the first language in which it was written into a second (and more) languages. "Lost in the translation" became an adage for good reason. Next, add 'individual interpretation' into the translation(s) and that can open up a slough of other perspectives as well.

 

[SweetSue92]

I said I followed the same research you did; then I went back and followed the research that had made up the studies I had been reading. You can delve into that same research. Did I say you know nothing? No. I said there is research that can be studied on both perspectives. I studied and followed the research on both. I have been saying you, if you wished, could do the same. If you are happy with what you already found, then why go on?

I have not been talking about individual interpretation. I have been noting what everyone knows happens when an original account is translated from the first language in which it was written into a second (and more) languages. "Lost in the translation" became an adage for good reason. Next, add 'individual interpretation' into the translation(s) and that can open up a slough of other perspectives as well.

So from your perspective, God consigned Joseph and Mary to a sexless marriage because of what reason? They were faithful?

The only "research" I can find to prove your point is Catholic. GEE, I wonder why

 

[Meriweather]

So from your perspective, God consigned Joseph and Mary to a sexless marriage because of what reason? They were faithful?

The only "research" I can find to prove your point is Catholic. GEE, I wonder why

Heavy, heavy sigh. What you don't understand about me is that I have not once mentioned my perspective. I merely stated that there two perspectives, and that I have researched both. Personally, I could not care less whether or not Mary and Joseph had a sex life. That's none of my business. It seems to matter to you, but it doesn't to me. PerspectiveS and research are what interest me. I was interested in both Catholic and Protestant perspectives, not to mention cultural practices at the time, and I dug into all of that.

Obviously, you are not interested in any perspective but the Protestant perspective, and that's fine. You remind me of my mom. She, too, lived in a black and white world and was not interested in my many shades of a grey world. I don't see in that black and white manner. I see in shades of grey, and that is why perspectives interest me. Why are you so adamant I should pick a side?

 

[JoeB131]

So from your perspective, God consigned Joseph and Mary to a sexless marriage because of what reason? They were faithful?

The only "research" I can find to prove your point is Catholic. GEE, I wonder why

At my niece's baptism, my brother pointed out a statue of St. Joseph, and I commented, "Only my Patron Saint would have bought 'THAT' story."

He laughed. My sisters just glared at us.

Ah, let's talk a bit more about my Patron Saint, shall we?

Both Luke and Matthew give genealogies of Jesus to trace his lineage back to King David. Except they can't agree on who the other forebears were. Matthew listed Jesus' grandpa as Jacob and traces the line through Solomon and the Kings of Judah.

Luke lists Jesus's grandfather as Levi, and traces his ancestry back through Nathan.

But both list JOSEPH as his father. Even though we know Joseph wasn't the sperm donor.

youtube.com/watch?v=A7ZIRHtcH8o

 

[ding]

At my niece's baptism, my brother pointed out a statue of St. Joseph, and I commented, "Only my Patron Saint would have bought 'THAT' story."

He laughed. My sisters just glared at us.

Ah, let's talk a bit more about my Patron Saint, shall we?

Both Luke and Matthew give genealogies of Jesus to trace his lineage back to King David. Except they can't agree on who the other forebears were. Matthew listed Jesus' grandpa as Jacob and traces the line through Solomon and the Kings of Judah.

Luke lists Jesus's grandfather as Levi, and traces his ancestry back through Nathan.

But both list JOSEPH as his father. Even though we know Joseph wasn't the sperm donor.

youtube.com/watch?v=A7ZIRHtcH8o

Both Gospels confirm Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. You are tilting at windmills.

 

[ding]

So from your perspective, God consigned Joseph and Mary to a sexless marriage because of what reason? They were faithful?

Because she is the new Ark of the Covenant. She is a sacred vessel.

Mary is called the Ark of the Covenant because, like the Old Testament Ark holding God's presence, she physically carried God Incarnate (Jesus) within her womb, fulfilling prophecy and becoming the dwelling place for the Word of God, the true "Bread from Heaven," and the new covenant itself, with Scriptural parallels linking her visitation with Elizabeth to David's encounter with the Ark.
Symbolic Connections:

• Dwelling Place of God: The Ark of the Covenant housed God's presence (the Shekinah glory cloud) for the Israelites; Mary housed God's presence in the flesh (Jesus).
• Bearing God's Word: The Ark contained the stone tablets of the Law (God's Word); Mary bore the living Word of God, Jesus.
• New Covenant: Just as the Ark represented the Old Covenant, Mary embodies the New Covenant through Jesus, the mediator of that new promise (Hebrews 9:15).
• Manna & Ephod: The Ark held manna (bread from heaven) and Aaron's staff; Mary bore Jesus, the true Bread of Life, and Elizabeth's son, John the Baptist (a priest), leaped in her womb, mirroring David's priestly joy before the Ark.
• Shared History: Luke's Gospel parallels Mary's visit to Elizabeth (staying three months in the hill country) with the Ark staying at Obed-edom's house for three months.

Biblical Basis:

• Luke's Gospel: The Gospel of Luke intentionally uses Old Testament language and imagery (e.g., the "over-shadowing" by the Holy Spirit, the leaping of the child in the womb) to present Mary as the new Ark.
• Church Fathers: Early Christian writers strongly supported this "typology," seeing Mary as a foreshadowing of the Ark, a concept rooted in scripture.

In essence, Mary becomes the sacred vessel, the true Ark, where God's presence, word, and covenant are made real and accessible in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Meriweather]

Both Gospels confirm Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. You are tilting at windmills.

He just hopes people forget he was a former Catholic school student and was taught the stories each genealogy tells by naming the people it lists.

 

[ding]

He just hopes people forget he was a former Catholic school student and was taught the stories each genealogy tells by naming the people it lists.

I have yet to meet an apostate that wasn't insufferable.

 

[JoeB131]

He just hopes people forget he was a former Catholic school student and was taught the stories each genealogy tells by naming the people it lists.

Actually, what I remembered was that when I questioned the bullshit, Sr. Mary Butch gave me a nice whack over the knuckles for my trouble.

Both Gospels confirm Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. You are tilting at windmills.

But the Bible still traces his lineage through my Patron Saint, who frankly, sounds like a major league Cuck.

I have yet to meet an apostate that wasn't insufferable.

Or maybe the problem is that you want to be fooled.

Let's take Magicians. We all know they are performing tricks! But the whole audience will look crossly at the guy who yells, "Those are fake legs" during the Sawing the Lady in Half Trick. We want to be fooled.

Now, to beat the analogy to death, the Sawing the Lady in Half Trick is over 100 years old. Nearly every magician has done a variant on it. It's actually kind of misogynistic, if you really think about it.

Of course, it has its roots in the Grand-Guignol horror theater of the 19th century, but today, most variations on the trick are kind of campy.

Which brings us back to religion. It's a bunch of old Bronze Age stories that made sense to people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Today, we know better, but as a culture, we really want to be fooled.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Regardless of what any particular Christian denominations teaches, it's always wise to reference the Bible for the real answers:

1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

In other words ... there are not TWO or more mediators. Only ONE.

 

[ding]

Actually, what I remembered was that when I questioned the bullshit, Sr. Mary Butch gave me a nice whack over the knuckles for my trouble.



But the Bible still traces his lineage through my Patron Saint, who frankly, sounds like a major league Cuck.



Or maybe the problem is that you want to be fooled.

Let's take Magicians. We all know they are performing tricks! But the whole audience will look crossly at the guy who yells, "Those are fake legs" during the Sawing the Lady in Half Trick. We want to be fooled.

Now, to beat the analogy to death, the Sawing the Lady in Half Trick is over 100 years old. Nearly every magician has done a variant on it. It's actually kind of misogynistic, if you really think about it.

View attachment 1194743

Of course, it has its roots in the Grand-Guignol horror theater of the 19th century, but today, most variations on the trick are kind of campy.

Which brings us back to religion. It's a bunch of old Bronze Age stories that made sense to people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Today, we know better, but as a culture, we really want to be fooled.

There was no word for step father. Both Gospels confirm Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. You are tilting at windmills.

And if it's as you say and just "a bunch of old Bronze Age stories," then you wouldn't need to be tilting at windmills.

 

[JoeB131]

There was no word for step father. Both Gospels confirm Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. You are tilting at windmills.

And if it's as you say and just "a bunch of old Bronze Age stories," then you wouldn't need to be tilting at windmills.

Then why not trace Mary's genealogy?

Oh, there is a Hebrew word for Stepfather. אָב חוֹרֵג av choreg

Now, if you look at the historical context, it makes more sense.

The first Gospel written was Mark. Mark didn't go into the Nativity or Jesus' ancestry or any of that stuff. It's a straightforward gospel that just spells out Jesus' philosophy and the history of his ministry.

Luke and Matthew were written later, when Christians were trying harder to connect Jesus with the Messiah Traditions of Judaism and other Middle-Eastern faiths. (For instance, the Three Magi were an attempt to connect it to Zoroasterian beliefs.) They took Mark's gospel and embellished it.

That meant finding creative ways to make Jesus a descendant of David AND to somehow put his birth in Bethlehem, even though he was from Galilee.

So what if tomorrow, some archeologists found Jesus's remains? It if turned out he was just a regular dude who wasn't divine?

You see, as much as I like to torment God-botherers, the philosophy of Jesus is actually a pretty good one. I wish more "Christians" would do that. Why you need these fairy stories about virgin births and ressurections is beyond me, really.

 

[ding]

Then why not trace Mary's genealogy?

They did.

• Luke's Genealogy: Traces Jesus's lineage through Joseph as the "son of Heli," but Heli is understood by many scholars to be Mary's father, making it Mary's line.
• Davidic Connection: Both genealogies establish Jesus as a descendant of King David, crucial for messianic claims, but Luke shows it through Mary's bloodline.
• Biblical Convention: Women's names were generally omitted from genealogies, so Mary's inclusion is implicit, not explicit.
• Purpose: Luke's account emphasizes Jesus's humanity and universal salvation (tracing back to Adam), while Matthew's focuses on his royal right (tracing back to Abraham).

 

[JoeB131]

They did.

• Luke's Genealogy: Traces Jesus's lineage through Joseph as the "son of Heli," but Heli is understood by many scholars to be Mary's father, making it Mary's line.
• Davidic Connection: Both genealogies establish Jesus as a descendant of King David, crucial for messianic claims, but Luke shows it through Mary's bloodline.
• Biblical Convention: Women's names were generally omitted from genealogies, so Mary's inclusion is implicit, not explicit.
• Purpose: Luke's account emphasizes Jesus's humanity and universal salvation (tracing back to Adam), while Matthew's focuses on his royal right (tracing back to Abraham).

Except that's not what Lukes Gospel says.

Luke 3: 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24p;the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

Not a peep about Mary in there.

 

[ding]

Except that's not what Lukes Gospel says.

Luke 3: 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24p;the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

Not a peep about Mary in there.

You're arguing with google.

 

[JoeB131]

You're arguing with google.

No, I'm arguing with what the Bible actually says.

One of the many, many reasons why I stopped being Catholic was because I saw the disconnect between what is in the bible and what is was taught as dogma. It didn't help that legitimate questions about these discrepancies were often met with a ruler across the knuckles by a frustrated lesbian in a habit.

"Hey, the Bible says no graven images, why do we have all these statues?" Whack!

"If God was Jesus' father, why does the Bible talk about Joseph's ancestors?" WHACK!

"Why did God drown all the babies in the Flood?" WHACK!

That last one was met with one of the most absurd things I ever heard. "They were WICKED babies, WIIIIICKED!" Of course, this old bat called all of us "wicked" for just being....you know.. kids.

 

[ding]

No, I'm arguing with what the Bible actually says.

One of the many, many reasons why I stopped being Catholic was because I saw the disconnect between what is in the bible and what is was taught as dogma. It didn't help that legitimate questions about these discrepancies were often met with a ruler across the knuckles by a frustrated lesbian in a habit.

"Hey, the Bible says no graven images, why do we have all these statues?" Whack!

"If God was Jesus' father, why does the Bible talk about Joseph's ancestors?" WHACK!

"Why did God drown all the babies in the Flood?" WHACK!

That last one was met with one of the most absurd things I ever heard. "They were WICKED babies, WIIIIICKED!" Of course, this old bat called all of us "wicked" for just being....you know.. kids.

Google disagrees. You know what I'm not going to do? Argue with an apostate that has an ax to grind. Both Gospels confirm Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. There was no word for step father. Mary's lineage is captured in Luke. You are tilting at windmills.

 

[JoeB131]

Google disagrees. You know what I'm not going to do? Argue with an apostate that has an ax to grind. Both Gospels confirm Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. There was no word for step father. Mary's lineage is captured in Luke. You are tilting at windmills.

1) Don't use Google AI to do your thinking for you. That's almost as bad as letting the Church do it.
2) Both Gospels also trace Jesus' lineage to David through Joseph, not Mary. This is important because one of the Bona fides of the Messiah was to be a descendant of David.
3) There is a Hebrew word for Stepfather. Probably a Greek word, too, as the Gospels were originally written in Greek.
4) Joseph's lineage (well, one of them) is captured in Luke. No word on who Mary's ancestors were. St. Joachim and St. Anne were Mary's parents, even though they are not mentioned in the Bible.
5) Looks like I'm doing a good job taking the Windmills out.

 

[ding]

1) Don't use Google AI to do your thinking for you. That's almost as bad as letting the Church do it.
2) Both Gospels also trace Jesus' lineage to David through Joseph, not Mary. This is important because one of the Bona fides of the Messiah was to be a descendant of David.
3) There is a Hebrew word for Stepfather. Probably a Greek word, too, as the Gospels were originally written in Greek.
4) Joseph's lineage (well, one of them) is captured in Luke. No word on who Mary's ancestors were. St. Joachim and St. Anne were Mary's parents, even though they are not mentioned in the Bible.
5) Looks like I'm doing a good job taking the Windmills out.

And yet it is 100% accurate in this case. Maybe you should try using it instead of relying on apostates.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet it is 100% accurate in this case. Maybe you should try using it instead of relying on apostates.

Why should I rely on Google when I can read what the Bible actually says?

I have a copy of the Bible in my home. I actually have two copies, but one of them is in Chinese, so that one doesn't help.

Same Catholic Bible I had when I was in that Catholic School.