Ask a Catholic

Kasmic: Does this not undermine the concept of petitionery prayer? Do Catholics Offer petitionary prayers? Would not such request be in vain as whatever God in infinite knowledge and goodness already know the best thing to do? Why would a prayer change that?

Sure, God knows what we want, but just like human parents, He prefers if His children shows interest in their lives. Just like human parents, He's going to be more likely to grant a need if a request is made. With this in mind, petitions are preferred (1 Timothy 2:1), not discouraged.

dsjpk5: My Bible's rendition of Matt. 27:61 doesn't even mention James. Interesting.

You know, the Orthodox church has a big emphasis on all their feast days and stuff. And I still hear them talk less about Mary.

Examples of things I find interesting:
> That Jesus was a carpenter, because at the time there was a skill shortage in carpentry across the Roman empire. There was actually good money to be made in it.
> That Jesus was given vinegar to drink on the cross - most likely an act of compassion by the Roman soldiers. It is abundantly clear to me that the Romans did everything in their power to stop the execution.
> That Jesus was fairly openly critical of the Pharisees. He clearly was against the Pharisee movement as a whole even though his own philosophy borrowed liberally from Pharisee thinking. It seems likely to me that whatever religious instruction he would have had, a significant amount probably came from Pharisees.
> That the authorities on several occasions tried to apprehend Jesus but couldn't find him. Even when they were standing right in front of him, they didn't know who he was until Judas kissed him. Jesus was like the ultimate ninja.
> Mary "what the hell should I do with all my inherited wealth except squander it on big parties in my super-mansion" Magdalene. Seriously, Jesus stepping in during the stoning or dining with tax collectors is nothing compared to the guts it took for him to add Mary to his entourage IMO.

admin: My Bible's rendition of Matt. 27:61 doesn't even mention James. Interesting.

I should have provided more context, my apologies. The passage in question begins at verse 55, and ends with 61. It begins with calling her the Mother of James (and Joses/Joseph), and ending with her being referred to as "the other Mary". Here's a link:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A55-61%2CMatthew+28%3A1-8%2CLuke+24%3A10%2CJohn+20%3A11-18&version=NIV


You know, the Orthodox church has a big emphasis on all their feast days and stuff. And I still hear them talk less about Mary.

Well, as great as the Orthodox Church is, I agree that they fall short of the Catholic position on Mary, but that should be expected (since they separated from the Catholic Church)

Having said that, they do petition her for prayer, like us.
They believe she was sinless her entire life, like us.
They believe she was a virgin her entire life, like us.
> That Jesus was a carpenter, because at the time there was a skill shortage in carpentry across the Roman empire. There was actually good money to be made in it.


Quite possibly a trade taught to him by Joseph.


> That Jesus was given vinegar to drink on the cross - most likely an act of compassion by the Roman soldiers. It is abundantly clear to me that the Romans did everything in their power to stop the execution.

Although I agree that there were some soldiers who showed compassion, there were also those that mocked Jesus.
> That Jesus was fairly openly critical of the Pharisees. He clearly was against the Pharisee movement as a whole even though his own philosophy borrowed liberally from Pharisee thinking. It seems likely to me that whatever religious instruction he would have had, a significant amount probably came from Pharisees.


I think Jesus's main contention with them was with their hypocrisy. They didn't practice what they preached.

That the authorities on several occasions tried to apprehend Jesus but couldn't find him. Even when they were standing right in front of him, they didn't know who he was until Judas kissed him. Jesus was like the ultimate ninja.

I agree. Clearly, being God doesn't only allow you to walk on water. Remember, the Apostles didn't always recognize Him either. Obviousness, He could alter His appearance from time to time.
Mary "what the hell should I do with all my inherited wealth except squander it on big parties in my super-mansion" Magdalene. Seriously, Jesus stepping in during the stoning or dining with tax collectors is nothing compared to the guts it took for him to add Mary to his entourage IMO.

I agree!

dsjpk5: My presumption here is that the other Mary referred to here (Mary mother of James) is the same Mary who is also mother of Jesus. But I suppose it's an interesting reading that maybe Mary had a sister also called Mary. NT is swarming with them as it is.

The reason I find the carpentry thing so interesting is that people commonly assume Jesus was poor or something.

there were also those that mocked Jesus
Yes and I find that very interesting too. As a literary device it's very clever. In my view Pilate suspected Jesus was manipulating the Jews (because he wouldn't defend himself before him) so "king of the Jews" is an appropriate allusion. It also demonstrates the attitudes of Romans and Jews towards each other at the time. And also it creates an allusion to the last Jewish king, Herod. What they are mocking is the idea of a Jewish king. That's why the whole contingent of soldiers was asked to witness it - it was a helpful tool to show the men that they were in charge around there. I see no evidence any of the soldiers knew anything about Jesus personally. Mark routinely emphasizes just how dumb the actual charge was, which fits well with Mark's overall narrative (Mark is my favorite gospel BTW XD), so to me the reason for emphasizing this isn't to say "the soldiers didn't like Jesus" but more to say "the soldiers agreed the charge was ridiculous".

I think Jesus's main contention with them was with their hypocrisy.
Yeah but he singled them out. There's like several dozen sects around at the time and the ones he happens to attack repeatedly are the Pharisees. Are they the only ones who are hypocrites? Clearly not. Jesus was a very good lawyer, as evidenced when some Sadducees attempt to argue with him. Most likely, in my view, because of their position on the Sanhedrin. Jesus obviously didn't like the Jewish authorities much but showed a lot of partiality to the Romans. This is a guy who denounced the showering of lavish gifts on Jewish temples but had no issue rendering to Caesar after all. Nowadays we talk as though "love thy neighbor" was some radical Jesus-idea - the actual probably-most controversial statement Jesus said, other than maybe implying being the messiah, was "pay thy taxes." Sometimes I see those republican small-government folks on TV gather in huge churches or something. It makes me wonder.

Come to think of it, maybe that explains why Josephus may have passingly mentioned Jesus. I think the two would have a lot in common even though Josephus was a dedicated Pharisee, although I doubt (given the circumstances) Josephus would have known much of anything about him.

Also I just discovered this the other day. Thought I'd share: http://www.bricktestament.com/home.html

Next time I do a religion debate I'll consider using this instead of my usual LOLcat Bible.

admin: My presumption here is that the other Mary referred to here (Mary mother of James) is the same Mary who is also mother of Jesus. But I suppose it's an interesting reading that maybe Mary had a sister also called Mary. NT is swarming with them as it is.

Your claim could be possible if it weren't for John's account of the scene:

John 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.

So we see the Mary mentioned as the mother of James is in fact Mary the wife of Clopas. I also can't imagine Jesus's mother ever being so flippantly described as "the other Mary".

As for Jesus being poor or not depends on how much carpentry He performed. We just don't know.

Yes and I find that very interesting too. As a literary device it's very clever. In my view Pilate suspected Jesus was manipulating the Jews (because he wouldn't defend himself before him) so "king of the Jews" is an appropriate allusion. It also demonstrates the attitudes of Romans and Jews towards each other at the time. And also it creates an allusion to the last Jewish king, Herod. What they are mocking is the idea of a Jewish king. That's why the whole contingent of soldiers was asked to witness it - it was a helpful tool to show the men that they were in charge around there. I see no evidence any of the soldiers knew anything about Jesus personally. Mark routinely emphasizes just how dumb the actual charge was, which fits well with Mark's overall narrative (Mark is my favorite gospel BTW XD), so to me the reason for emphasizing this isn't to say "the soldiers didn't like Jesus" but more to say "the soldiers agreed the charge was ridiculous".

I agree with your assessment. Mark's my favorite gospel as well. I love how Jesus is always described as taking action. He's constantly being described as doing stuff. "And then Jesus..."

Yeah but he singled them out. There's like several dozen sects around at the time and the ones he happens to attack repeatedly are the Pharisees. Are they the only ones who are hypocrites? Clearly not. Jesus was a very good lawyer, as evidenced when some Sadducees attempt to argue with him. Most likely, in my view, because of their position on the Sanhedrin. Jesus obviously didn't like the Jewish authorities much but showed a lot of partiality to the Romans. This is a guy who denounced the showering of lavish gifts on Jewish temples but had no issue rendering to Caesar after all. Nowadays we talk as though "love thy neighbor" was some radical Jesus-idea - the actual probably-most controversial statement Jesus said, other than maybe implying being the messiah, was "pay thy taxes." Sometimes I see those republican small-government folks on TV gather in huge churches or something. It makes me wonder.

It's certainly possible that there was more than one reason Jesus seemed to single them out. Perhaps their status among the powerful inspired this. It certainly would have been controversial and therefore garner attention.

As for rendering to Caesar, I see a distinction between lavish gifts, and paying what is due.

Come to think of it, maybe that explains why Josephus may have passingly mentioned Jesus. I think the two would have a lot in common even though Josephus was a dedicated Pharisee, although I doubt (given the circumstances) Josephus would have known much of anything about him.


Good assessment.

dsjpk5: Yahweh is accurately names as a genocidal God who seems to kill many innocent children and babies due to anger with their parents. The story of King David's baby, Nosh's flood and the killing of the first born of Egypt, in particular, show a God who could cure as well as kill yet almost always chooses to take the moral low ground and kill the innocent instead of taking the moral high ground and curing the guilty.

What in particular makes you love such an evil God?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am: I would assert that the Old Testament authors would often exaggerate God's involvement in events in an attempt to establish the concept of His providence.

dsjpk5: Really?

You might have a point except for -----

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am: Posting verses by themselves is not an argument. In what way do you think those verses refute my claims?

dsjpk5: By dsjpk5

They refute what you put by indicating that the authors of the scriptures you might use are shepherds without understanding and are promoting traditions that do not come from within themselves and are hand me downs from previous generations. Lawyers in that Luke quote are who the authors of their holy books are.

A think to remember is that the Karaite Rabbies of the day, which I think Jesus followed, put man above God, hence the question Jesus asked in scriptures. That being, Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

Remember as well that Israel means to strive both for and against God. That is why they added so many other commandments to the big ten.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am: They refute what you put by indicating that the authors of the scriptures you might use are shepherds without understanding and are promoting traditions that do not come from within themselves and are hand me downs from previous generations. Lawyers in that Luke quote are who the authors of their holy books are.

There's nowhere in the passage from Isaiah that indicates the shepherds are authors, so you can understand why I reject your claim. As for the verses from Luke, I'm not suggesting any tradition should be adopted... just offering an interpretation, like you.
A think to remember is that the Karaite Rabbies of the day, which I think Jesus followed, put man above God, hence the question Jesus asked in scriptures. That being, Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?


I'm not putting man before God. I'm just suggesting a literal interpretation isn't always the best one. The existence of two creation accounts in Genesis is proof that not every passage is supposed to be interpreted literally.

Remember as well that Israel means to strive both for and against God. That is why they added so many other commandments to the big ten.

I'm not suggesting any new commandments. I'm merely suggesting literal interpretations aren't always the best.

dsjpk5: There's nowhere in the passage from Isaiah that indicates the shepherds are authors,


True that shepherds are not authors, in literal reading that you do not believe in, but shepherds lead the flocks, and in that quote shepherd means leader and the scriptures were written by the leaders and that quote warns that they have no understanding and are thus corrupted.

" I'm not suggesting any tradition should be adopted

Neither am I. That quote suggests that tradition should be ignored or rejected if one finds a better way through internal seeking for our internal spark of God.

I'm not putting man before God.

I know. I am and you should do so as well. If not, one ends in believing in the supernatural and that is murder on a persons thinking ability. Right?

The existence of two creation accounts in Genesis is proof that not every passage is supposed to be interpreted literally.

I agree. Doublettes, is that the right word, --- this Frenchman is not always sure of his English grammar, --- are common in scriptures.

I think that literal readers often miss the message in the myth and perhaps that is why Christian end in adoring a genocidal son murdering prick of a God. Please pardon my honesty but I have found that whatever term I use offends believers so I have decided to go with honesty.

I'm not suggesting any new commandments.

I know. I was just indicating how the Jews did not think their God had written his set well enough to cover people.

Now I am tempted to as you two question.

The first is the same one you basically tried to deflect from above.

I will amend it now that I know you are only a little bit of a literal reader or cherry picker. I do not mean that as an insult BTW, I do the same.

What in particular makes you love a God who is depicted as such an evil prick? Or do you not believe any of the stories where God is shown to kill instead of cure?

Further on this, if Yahweh and Jesus are not literally the same God, how can you believe in Jesus and not Yahweh?

Regards
DL

dsjpk5:

I have a question that I need answered before I place my main question so please answer with care.

Would you say that God is of one species, --- even if as you likely think, he is the only one in his species, --- and man is another completely different species.

Regards
DL

Definitely, especially during a time I needed financial help.

Wow. With what, 10 million children under 10 dying of starvation and other preventable diseases yearly, you think God thought of your financial needs above their need to live.

Just Wow.

That aside, on Joseph and Mary.

One of the main reasons Jewry rejected Jesus as savior was because the savior was to be of King David line, and that line was carried by the males only.

God cuckolding Joseph does not gain that condition.

John 7;42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am: True that shepherds are not authors, in literal reading that you do not believe in,

I never said I don't believe in literal interpretations. It depends on the writing styles, context, and audience.

, but shepherds lead the flocks, and in that quote shepherd means leader and the scriptures were written by the leaders and that quote warns that they have no understanding and are thus corrupted.

The quote doesn't say ALL shepherds have no understanding. It simply describes those specific shepherds/leaders as not having understanding. With this in mind, we have no reason to believe that all leaders/biblical authors lacked understanding.

Neither am I. That quote suggests that tradition should be ignored or rejected if one finds a better way through internal seeking for our internal spark of God.

Where does it say anything about following the spark of God?? It speaks against a specific tradition ("your tradition"), not all traditions.

I know. I am and you should do so as well. If not, one ends in believing in the supernatural and that is murder on a persons thinking ability. Right?

No. That's false.
What in particular makes you love a God who is depicted as such an evil prick? Or do you not believe any of the stories where God is shown to kill instead of cure?



My answer hasn't changed. As I've.shown, there's no reason to believe the verse in Isaiah applies to all leaders. With this in mind, there's no inherent flaw in my stance, which is... I assert that the authors of the Old Testament often exaggerated God's involvement in killings in an attempt to establish the concept of God's providence.

Further on this, if Yahweh and Jesus are not literally the same God, how can you believe in Jesus and not Yahweh?

They are the same God.

Greatest I am: It depends on how you define "species". Can you elaborate?

Greatest I am: Wow. With what, 10 million children under 10 dying of starvation and other preventable diseases yearly, you think God thought of your financial needs above their need to live.


No. He didn't put anyone above another. To put it simply, the God I believe in can multitask. He can be engaged with my issue and a starving child's issue simultaneously.

One of the main reasons Jewry rejected Jesus as savior was because the savior was to be of King David line, and that line was carried by the males only.

For the sake of argument, let's assume your "males only" claim is true. Jesus would have been a part of he Davidic line via adoption.

dsjpk5: Where does it say anything about following the spark of God?? It speaks against a specific tradition ("your tradition"), not all traditions.

It speaks against your tradition, not mine.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.


Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


No. That's false.

No it is not as faith without facts id for fools.

You have no way of knowing anything about the supernatural. That is why your own scriptures say that God is unknowable and unfathomable. It seems you do not believe your own scriptures.

Your denial without showing the error of my thinking shows you do not follow this scripture either.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

I assert that the authors of the Old Testament often exaggerated God's involvement in killings in an attempt to establish the concept of God's providence.

So you call yourself a Christian while ignoring most of what is written and what created your ideology.

Ok.

Many would call that hypocrisy as Jesus himself refered back to what you have scrapped.

Regards
DL

They are the same God.

Yet you have scrapped what is described for Yahweh.

More hypocrisy.

Is anything spoken of here what you accept or do you scrap it all?

https://vimeo.com/7038401

Regards
DL