All I'm saying is that I can't imagine the Catholic Church specifically deleting a large portion of the Bible. Absolutely Jesus still existed. Perhaps it was just not written about. I'm not going to pretend to know all the answers, but I'm not going to assume the pseudo-conspiracy theory that you perhaps suscribe to.

 

I don't much engage in conspiracy theory. However, the selection and editing of the Canon has always left me scratching my head. By the same token, however, there are stories in the apocryphal gospels of Jesus as a child "finding his way," so to speak, w/re to his Divine powers. Stories that might not paint Jesus in the most favorable light.

 

I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that certain parts of the life of Jesus and his family may have been left out in order to present a coherent and positive image of them. That doesn't necessarily mean large chunks, but perhaps a key detail here and there. I look at that more along the lines of good PR for a political/religious organization interested in growth (the Church), as well as good editing in the interest of making a more compelling, uplifting story.

 

Do you not think that the large gap between Jesus' childhood and his arrival at 31 is suspicious in the least? I mean, something had to happen during that intermittent period. And besides, there are really only a handful of stories referencing Jesus as a child following his birth.

I agree with a lot of this, but if they left some books out who is to say they didn't edit the bible around a little bit?

Of course anything is possible- there's the possibility that all religion is a sham, although of course I don't think that- but for this, there isn't any proof. We know they left out books (because we have the books and it is on record), but to just assume that they edited isn't backed by anything. You can believe it, I just think it is a baseless assumption.

I don't much engage in conspiracy theory. However, the selection and editing of the Canon has always left me scratching my head. By the same token, however, there are stories in the apocryphal gospels of Jesus as a child "finding his way," so to speak, w/re to his Divine powers. Stories that might not paint Jesus in the most favorable light.

 

I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that certain parts of the life of Jesus and his family may have been left out in order to present a coherent and positive image of them. That doesn't necessarily mean large chunks, but perhaps a key detail here and there. I look at that more along the lines of good PR for a political/religious organization interested in growth (the Church), as well as good editing in the interest of making a more compelling, uplifting story.

 

Do you not think that the large gap between Jesus' childhood and his arrival at 31 is suspicious in the least? I mean, something had to happen during that intermittent period. And besides, there are really only a handful of stories referencing Jesus as a child following his birth.

Just like you have to have faith that the Bible is inspired, I can only have faith that the books (or even sections, although I don't believe that to be true) left out were done so because of divine inspiration as well. I'm not suspicious because I do believe that some people out there act for something more than self-benefit. I know that plenty of events transpired between Jesus's childhood and age 31- I can only have faith that they are left out because they were not necessary to the faith, rather than the selfish ambitions of clergymen eager to grow their Church coffers.

 

Besides, you are a journalist, what's wrong with some good editing?

Catholics here will hate me for saying it, but I don't believe you can be a good Catholic and believe Mary had kids. (Yes, I'm an elitist, I am not the judge of who is a good or bad Catholic, etc. etc.) To clarify, what I am saying is that having kids after Jesus is not inherently sinful in and of itself. However, since that is contrary to what happened, and contrary to what the Church teaches, then you can't believe it. Does that make any sense?

 

It makes perfect sense. That's the answer I expected...and that's why I was surprised to see this statement in your post, "I don't think that Mary having children would have made her a less holy woman either."

 

Believing Mary had children forces you to deny an important Catholic teaching by default. I don't see how the two are compatible.

The Bible's silence on issues leaves it up to us to determine the truth. This issue, I feel, is adequately discussed in other historical documents, even though they may not be Scriptural canon. I think it is a bit logically disingenuous to, with knowledge that the Greek words for "brother" and "sister" don't translate directly into our meanings, just take the English translation at face value and ignore all other historical sources since they are not Scripture.

 

But either way, you are 100% correct that, with every other debate we have, Sola Scriptura is the root of it. But even if I don't convince you or you don't convince me, at least we are presented with both arguments? Plus, while I recognize that (because of the Sola Scriptura issue) I'm not going to change your mind, I only typed this post out so I could have the last word and seemingly win this one

 

I never said I was bowing out.

 

I have no aspirations of changing your mind. I just like the discussions to be honest. And, I enjoy participating it them as long as they remain cordial.

 

As for the top paragraph, you make it sound as if we're applying a different meaning to the words. We're not. They can mean either. I just think the context of the verses in question largely point to literal family, not cousins or otherwise.

Of course anything is possible- there's the possibility that all religion is a sham, although of course I don't think that- but for this, there isn't any proof. We know they left out books (because we have the books and it is on record), but to just assume that they edited isn't backed by anything. You can believe it, I just think it is a baseless assumption.

 

The fact that there are so many manuscripts in existence for much of the Bible that it would be relatively easy to prove anything of the sort is the strongest argument I can think of.

It makes perfect sense. That's the answer I expected...and that's why I was surprised to see this statement in your post, "I don't think that Mary having children would have made her a less holy woman either."

 

Believing Mary had children forces you to deny an important Catholic teaching by default. I don't see how the two are compatible.

You are right. I'm having trouble explaining what I mean. My statement from earlier makes sense but I'm not doing a good job explaining it- the bolded is correct, they are not compatible.

I never said I was bowing out.

 

I have no aspirations of changing your mind. I just like the discussions to be honest. And, I enjoy participating it them as long as they remain cordial.

 

As for the top paragraph, you make it sound as if we're applying a different meaning to the words. We're not. They can mean either. I just think the context of the verses in question largely point to literal family, not cousins or otherwise.

Agreed. Except I do hope to change your mind, though I know it probably won't happen. But I like the discussion as well.

 

A few months ago, Hearsay said that we save the Great Schism debates for July (in jest, I believe) but his words were prophetic.

I don't much engage in conspiracy theory. However, the selection and editing of the Canon has always left me scratching my head. By the same token, however, there are stories in the apocryphal gospels of Jesus as a child "finding his way," so to speak, w/re to his Divine powers. Stories that might not paint Jesus in the most favorable light.

 

I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that certain parts of the life of Jesus and his family may have been left out in order to present a coherent and positive image of them. That doesn't necessarily mean large chunks, but perhaps a key detail here and there. I look at that more along the lines of good PR for a political/religious organization interested in growth (the Church), as well as good editing in the interest of making a more compelling, uplifting story.

 

Do you not think that the large gap between Jesus' childhood and his arrival at 31 is suspicious in the least? I mean, something had to happen during that intermittent period. And besides, there are really only a handful of stories referencing Jesus as a child following his birth.

 

I guess you can view that two ways Jim...the Christian perspective is that contradictions cannot both be inspired by God, especially if its pertaining to the most important figure in the history of mankind.

 

He can't be the sinless sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world at his death, after "finding his way" through life.

You are right. I'm having trouble explaining what I mean. My statement from earlier makes sense but I'm not doing a good job explaining it- the bolded is correct, they are not compatible.

 

Agreed. Except I do hope to change your mind, though I know it probably won't happen. But I like the discussion as well.

 

A few months ago, Hearsay said that we save the Great Schism debates for July (in jest, I believe) but his words were prophetic.

 

I've taken part in more than a couple...I got tired of them for a while, but this one drew me in somehow. I guess the topic was a little different than the norm...

 

...however, we managed to find our way back to Sola Scriptura vs. Church Tradition. Like clockwork...two heavyweights slugging it out with no end in sight. :lol:

 

And, of course, I'd like to convince everyone to see things my way. But, I've been through enough of these to know it ain't happenin'.

Not mentioned in the Bible- just a possibility. I'm not claiming it to be in Scripture.

 

In my humble opinion for it to be a possibility it has to say it in the Bible. I believe it says somewhere not to add or take away from Gods word. Someone else on BGP may know the chapter and verse I am talking about if not I will gladly do some homework on it!

In my humble opinion for it to be a possibility it has to say it in the Bible. I believe it says somewhere not to add or take away from Gods word. Someone else on BGP may know the chapter and verse I am talking about if not I will gladly do some homework on it!

If the Bible doesn't clearly address something, we need to think of other ways to figure it out. For example, the Bible doesn't mention stem cell research, but we need to use the power of prayer, thought, and other sources to figure out a position on it. I'm not adding to or taking anything from Holy Scripture- but it still may have happened.

If the Bible doesn't clearly address something, we need to think of other ways to figure it out. For example, the Bible doesn't mention stem cell research, but we need to use the power of prayer, thought, and other sources to figure out a position on it. I'm not adding to or taking anything from Holy Scripture- but it still may have happened.

 

Stem cell research is a social issue that has arisen with the advances in science. You're right in saying the Bible doesn't address every single issue specifically by name...however, the doctrines of the Bible provide the foundation to make informed decisions on those issues.

 

The discussion about Mary is itself a doctrine (not supported by the Bible alone).

 

The two are hardly comparable in this case...it's apples and peanuts.

If the Bible doesn't clearly address something, we need to think of other ways to figure it out. For example, the Bible doesn't mention stem cell research, but we need to use the power of prayer, thought, and other sources to figure out a position on it. I'm not adding to or taking anything from Holy Scripture- but it still may have happened.

 

I can agree somewhat with you but whatever stand you make on stem-cell research as a christian you should be able to support with scripture. IMO! I think that the word of God (The Holy Bible) is the truth and can guide us as christians through our life today without adding or taking away. I think the biggest thing for me is not letting myself get caught up in the things of the world and to be honest I think religion is a thing of the world (it's man made) the one church is what Jesus built through his life, death and resurection and anyone who is truly saved through the blood of Jesus Christ is a brother or sister of that church(no matter what religion they are) and remember God is the only one who knows whose names have been written in the Lambs Book of Life. I was once told I could not be a member of a Babtist Church unless I was re-babtzed. I simply asked them to support that with scripture and they could only support it with Babtist doctrine. Doctrine is not the same as scriture because doctrine has been created by man! Ok, I am finished and sorry if I got off of the topic to much!

Stem cell research is a social issue that has arisen with the advances in science. You're right in saying the Bible doesn't address every single issue specifically by name...however, the doctrines of the Bible provide the foundation to make informed decisions on those issues.

 

The discussion about Mary is itself a doctrine (not supported by the Bible alone).

 

The two are hardly comparable in this case...it's apples and peanuts.

I wasn't trying to make the two situations seem comparable, just illustrating that we have to look outside of Scripture because Scripture doesn't address every little detail. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong or that we need to come to conclusions that contradict Scripture. And, due to meanings that were lost in translation, Scripture does not specifically define this issue.

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the "brothers" of the Lord were NOT full brothers, simply because Joseph was not his biological father. At the very most they could be half-brothers, step-brothers, or adopted brothers. Due to reports outside of Scripture, the beliefs of early Church fathers, AND Bible passages (that I've cited), I don't think that they were half-brothers through Mary, rather, that they were either cousins, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, or simply being referred to in a broad sense of brotherhood.

I wasn't trying to make the two situations seem comparable, just illustrating that we have to look outside of Scripture because Scripture doesn't address every little detail. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong or that we need to come to conclusions that contradict Scripture. And, due to meanings that were lost in translation, Scripture does not specifically define this issue.

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the "brothers" of the Lord were NOT full brothers, simply because Joseph was not his biological father. At the very most they could be half-brothers, step-brothers, or adopted brothers. Due to reports outside of Scripture, the beliefs of early Church fathers, AND Bible passages (that I've cited), I don't think that they were half-brothers through Mary, rather, that they were either cousins, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, or simply being referred to in a broad sense of brotherhood.

 

I don't think anyone would say that they are his "full" brothers.

Can I assume that you are of the Catholic faith? Would it make a difference to you if Mary did have children and/or didn't live a life of virginity after marriage? I'm not trying to offend you by any means, I'm just trying to see all sides of the argument.