The Land of Doctor Lareau
Mark Bonocore engages a very confused "Doc" Lareau and puts him straight. The Doc's comments are in blue.
PART 1
I am looking for answers for some questions related to the New Testament. Q 1: Matthew 1:24: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And KNEW HER NOT till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. The above versus conveys that Joseph’s wife remained as Virgin or not?
Well, in truth, Matt 1:24-25 is not at all interested in Mary's virginity after the birth of Jesus or the subsequent married life of Joseph and Mary. That isn't Matthew's intention in using the word "until." Rather, if you place yourself in the position of Matthew's original, 1st Century readers (who were hearing about Jesus' Virgin Birth for the very first time and had to be convinced of it), you will have to admit that Matthew's intention was to illustrate that Joseph could not possibly be the biological father of Jesus because he did not have relations with Mary between the time he took her into his home and ("until" or "up until") the time Jesus was born. It is only this specific period that the passage is concern about (that is, the reality that Jesus was born of a Virgin) and not the subsequent life of Mary or Joseph. And, this is how this passage was always understood by the native Greek-speakers in the early Church and also by all the original Protestant reformers.
For example, the Protestant reformer John Calvin writes:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the Gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company...And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)
Likewise, as I said, the Greek-speaking fathers of the early Church also understood quite clearly that Matthew's use of "until" was not intended to imply that Joseph had relations with Mary afterward.
For example, St. John Chrysostom writes:
"'And when he had taken her, he knew her not, until she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word 'until,' not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the Birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But, why then, it may be said, does he use the word 'until'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so, with respect to the ark likewise it is said, 'the raven returned not until the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when speaking also of God, the Scripture says, 'From age until age Thou art,' not as if fixing limits in this case. ...Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, He Himself has said: that the Virgin was untouched by man until the Birth, but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn He leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having to become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had know her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her into his home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way that Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, be for a time screened. Wherefore, even John so called them, saying, 'For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' " ---St. John Chrysostom, On the Gospel of Matthew V:5 (370 A.D.).
Q.2: Mark 6:3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Mark 15:40: 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..." Does it say that James is the younger of Jesus?
No. Though some modern English Bibles translate Mark 15:40 this way, that is not what it says in the Greek. In the Greek of Mark 15:40, James is called James "ho mikros" ---literally, "the little." Traditionally, this has been rendered "James the Less," but it literally means "the little," and most likely refers to his physical statue (his short height), not to his age. What's more, according to the patristic witness in Eusebius, Hegissipus, Epiphanius and others (Hegissipus and Epiphanius were both Jewish Christians from Judea), James the Just ("the brother of the Lord") was martyred in Jerusalem in about A.D. 62 at the age of 96. Given that Jesus was 33 in A.D. 29 (which is the correct date of the Crucifixion and Resurrection), this would make Jesus only 66 in A.D. 62, and so 30 years younger than James the Just. Ergo, James simply could not be the younger "brother" of Jesus or the child of Mary, since James and Mary were of about the same age. In fact, James was probably older than Mary! :-)
John clearly says that mother of Jesus was standing near the cross. 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. Obviously, other Gospels also must convey this (if at all any woman’s name is mentioned). Look at the way they are conveying: Mathew 27: 56: among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee. Mark 15:40: 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, Mark 15:41: who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. Luke 23:27: And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him." ( He is not mentioning any names)
You're overlooking Luke 24:10, where Luke names "Mary the mother of James" --the same woman named in the Cross/Tomb accounts in Matt 27 & 28 and Mark 15 & 16. Simply put, if this "other Mary" (Matt 28:1) in the Synoptic Cross/Tomb accounts, who is called "the mother of James and Joseph (Joses)," is the same person as Jesus' mother Mary, one has to explain why Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not simply call her "Jesus' mother" in these passages, as all three authors do earlier in their Gospels (e.g. Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, 2:21, 12:46, 12:47, 13:55, Mark 3:31, 3:32, 6:3, Luke 1:31-33, 1:42, 1:43, 2:5-7, 2:27, 2:33, 2:34, 2:41, 2:43, 2:48, 2:51, Luke 8:19, 8:20, Luke 11:27-28). And, even if someone were to propose some kind of novel "theology," and argue that the Synoptic Gospel writers no longer saw her as Jesus' mother at the Cross/Tomb (perhaps because of what Jesus said in Matt 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, and Luke 8:19-21, and Luke 11:27-28), this person would still have to deal with the fact that both Matthew and Luke speak of Mary as Jesus' mother later on ---Matthew in Matt 13:55 (that is, after Matt 12:46-50) and Luke in Acts 1:14, where Luke calls her, not "the mother of James," but "Mary the mother of Jesus" (remember that Luke and Acts were both written by the same author --Luke 1:1-4 & Acts 1:1-2). To this one must also add John 2:1-5 and John 19:25-27, where again she is called Jesus' mother, even at the Cross. So, the only possible conclusion is that "Mary the mother of Jesus" and "Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Joses) are clearly two different women. That is, the "Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Joses)" presented in the Synoptics is the same person as the "Mary of Clopas" presented in John 19:25, where she is called the Virgin Mary's "sister" (that is, tribal relative). Also, to address the point you make above, .... Neither Matthew nor Mark mention Jesus' mother being at the Cross. What they do say, however, if you read carefully, is that women were there, and "AMONG" them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Joses), and Salome (the mother of Zebedee's sons). Since they say "among" them, this clearly implies that there were others as well; and Jesus' mother (as we know from John's account) was part of that group. Now, Luke, interestingly enough, doesn't name any of the women at the Cross (Luke 23:27). Rather, he only names the women who were at the tomb (Luke 24:10). This is interesting because, given the prophecy of Simeon in Luke 2:34-35, where he speaks of the "sign of contradiction" (which is the Cross --life out of death) and how Mary's own heart will be pieced by a "sword" (i.e., her sorrow at the Cross), if Luke had listed the names of the women at the Cross, he would have had to list Jesus' mother. But, he doesn't cite any names at that point. What we can say with complete certainty, however, is that there were at least 3 Marys at the Cross: Jesus mother (John 19:25), Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and John, who is called Mary of Clopas in John's Gospel. It is this Mary of Clopas who is the mother of James and Joseph (Joses). That is the only possible conclusion UNLESS, once again, one can explain why Matthew, Mark, and Luke would suddenly cease to call Mary Jesus' mother at the Cross/Tomb and then resume calling her Jesus' mother thereafter. One would also have to explain why Matthew calls this woman at the Cross/Tomb "the other Mary" (Matt 27:61 & 28:1) ---that is, a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene, when she is always Jesus' mother throughout the rest of his Gospel (Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, 2:21, 12:46, 12:47, 13:55). Clearly, she cannot be Jesus' mother. This is another woman all together --the "Mary of Clopas" cited in John 19:25.
People are very good in giving interpretations to suit (or justify) their objectives. These interpretations are distorting many versus stated very clearly otherwise. And some of the teachings are clearly contradicting the Bible. Example: John 14: 6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. Acts 4: 8: Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, …Acts 4:12: And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:13: Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus. But the church teaches us that we need mediators to reach Jesus.
Well, you apparently misunderstand
both Scripture and what the Catholic Church teaches.
First of all, Scripture is very clear that there is only one
Mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ (e.g. 1
Tim 2:5). He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life --the only
access to the Father, and His is the only Name by which someone
can be saved. The Catholic Church is 100% committed
to this truth and has never taught otherwise. Yet, the
Catholic Church also recognizes that, while there is only one
Mediator between us and the Father (Jesus Christ), there are MANY
mediators between us and Jesus Christ. We call these people
CHRISTIANS. :-) For example, you and I would never
have heard of Jesus if the Christians who came before us had not
preached His Gospel and passed the Christian faith down to us
through the centuries. So, there is nothing wrong or unScriptural
about mediators between mankind and Christ (Christ, in turn,
being the one Mediator with the Father). We
Christians mediate for others whenever we pray for other
people, and others do it for us whenever we ask other Christians
(whether they are on earth or in Heaven ...like Mary and the
other saints) to pray for us. In James 5:16, it says to
pray for one another and how "the prayer of a righteous
person is very powerful with God." This is
intercessory prayer, or mediation. But, we understand that
this mediation / intercession on the part of one Christian for
someone else does not replace the ultimate Mediation of Christ
with the Father, since all prayer must be done in and through
Christ, Who in turn presents it to the Father.
Likewise, in James 5:19-20, it says how a Christian who stops
someone from sinning has "saved his soul from
death." This too is mediation. But, again,
it does not replace the ultimate Mediation of Christ, but is
mediation between the sinner and Christ --bringing the sinner
back to Christ, Who in turn can save
him. This is all that Mary or some other saint
in Heaven is able to do for us. They are intercessors
and mediators with Jesus on our behalf (just as fellow
Christians are here on earth), but Jesus alone is the One
Mediator with the Father.
Luke 23:43:
And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be
with me in Paradise." The above criminal could get into
paradise without any mediator, but Jesus!
:-) First of all, we Catholics do not claim that one absolutely needs any mediation apart from Jesus. Of course Christ can save someone directly --that is, through a direct request to Jesus Himself. And we Catholics do this all the time --that is, pray directly to Jesus. :-) But, Jesus also established us as a Church --that is, a communal Body, and He wants us to pray for each other and to help each other along (e.g. 1 Corinth 12:26). Thus, again, as it says in James 5:16, the prayer of a righteous person is very powerful with God." So, if I do something wrong --that is, commit a sin, it is a Christ-given gift to me that I can ask someone else in the Church who is more righteous than I am (another member of the Body of Christ Who is more faithful to his or her relationship with Christ) to pray for me and help me to be more faithful to Christ. This is why Jesus established us as a Church --a family/a household (1 Tim 3:15). Evangelical Protestantism tends to overlook the communal nature of the Church and reduce Christianity to a mere "me and Jesus" religion." But, it is not a "me and Jesus" religion. Rather, it is a "me, and Jesus, and the rest of the Church" (one Body in Christ) religion. Secondly, I hate to break this to you, but the Good Thief in Luke 23:43 did not go to immediately Heaven because of Jesus' promise. :-) Rather, all that Jesus promised him would be that he would be "in paradise" that day. Think about it. What Jesus said was: "THIS DAY you will be with me in Paradise." Yet, Jesus Himself did not go to Heaven "that day" -- Friday. :-) Indeed, He had still not gone to Heaven on Sunday morning when He rose, for He tells Mary Magdalene in John 20:17, "I have no yet ascended to the Father." In fact, 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 (as well as Ephes 4:8-10) tell us where Jesus was "that day." He was among the dead in Sheol --the Jewish realm of the dead. And, as every ancient Jew believed, Sheol was divided into two places ---Gehenna (a place of fiery punishment for the wicked) and the so-called "PARADISE of the Fathers," also known as the "Bosom of Abraham" (see Luke 16:22-30), which is where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other patriarchs of the Old Testament awaited deliverance by the Messiah. For, no one went to Heaven itself until Jesus Himself did ("I go to prepare a place for you."). So, the Good Thief went to a kind of "purgatory." :-)
God declares that Jesus is the Son of God after the baptism.Mathew 3:16: And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; Mathew 3:17: and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Thomas declares Jesus as God (only after the resurrection). John 20:27: Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." John 20:28: Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" My conclusion: All of us believe that Jesus is the incarnation of one of the Trinities, the Son. It doesn’t really matter whether the mother of Jesus is Virgin or not. What matters is how to reach God (and the only way is Jesus). So better not to waste our energy and time on irrelevant things (which can mislead us from Jesus).
Jesus is not "the incarnation of one of the Trinities." Rather, the Trinity is One, not plural. There is only One Trinity (One God), and three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal Divine Persons within this One Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, understood properly, Jesus is the Incarnation of one of the three Divine Persons of the Trinity (the eternal Son). I assume that's what you really want to say. Secondly, it is true that God declares Jesus to be His Son at the time of His Baptism in the Jordan by John. Yet, this in no sense means that Jesus was not the Son of God before this time. To imply such a thing is to deny Trinitarian orthodoxy and also to totally misunderstand the significance of Jesus' Baptism by John. John's Baptism, as Scripture says in many places, was not the same thing as Christian Baptism, but was a "baptism of repentance" ---that is, the Jewish mikveh custom. When someone converted to Judaism, what the ancient Jews would do, and what Orthodox Jews do to this very day, is, after circumcision, they shave all the hair off the convert's head and body, and cut his fingernails and toenails as short as possible. This is so that the person will resemble a newborn baby. Then, the convert is submerge into a mikveh (a Jewish ritual bath), and when he again emerges from the water, he is said to be re-born as a Jew. This is the origin of the form of Sacramental Baptism. So, in his pre-Christian baptism of repentance, what John the Baptist was doing was saying that all Jews had broken the Old Covenant ---that none of them were true Jews. So, he positioned himself on the far side of the Jordan (at the very place where Joshua split the waters in Joshua 3 and the Israelites entered the Promised Land for the first time) and had all the Jews cross over to that side. He then performed the milkveh (ritual bath) custom on them (signifying their repentance --i.e., their re-conversion to true Judaism) and allowed them to cross back over into the Promised Land to await the coming of the Messiah. So, this is what was going on. Now, into this situation ---this baptism of repentance, walks the Incarnate Son of God. And, when He Himself --the All-Holy and All-Righteous One of God (Who embodied the Torah and its perfection) stood in the place of sinners and submitted Himself (as a Personification of Israel) to this baptism of repentance, it was an act of such incredible humility that the Heavens themselves were parted and the Spirit descended upon Him, with God declaring that Jesus was indeed His beloved Son. THAT'S what was going on. This was the moment of Jesus' anointing as the Messiah. This was the moment when peace was established between God and man (which is why the Spirit descended in the form of a dove --a dove symbolizes peace). In other words, while mankind was already perfected in the Person of Jesus Christ (the New Adam --the eternal Son of God Incarnate), now that Jesus had place Himself on par with sinners (by submitting to John's baptism of repentance), the peace of God extended to other men --to mankind in general; and this grace would of course climax at the Cross. But, from this point on, Jesus was able to forgive sins (as the "Son of Man") and to reconcile others with God.
It does not mean, however, that Jesus was not fully-God and fully-man before this time, since John the Baptist even said that he started to baptize so that the Messiah (the All-Holy and All-Perfect One) might be revealed (John 1:31). It is likewise a big mistake to assume that Jesus was not God until after His Resurrection. Rather, His Divine nature was only fully recognized and appreciated by the disciples after the Resurrection; but He was always fully-God and fully-man from the moment of His Incarnation (Luke 1:38). In other words, the eternal Son of God (the Second Person of the Trinity) became man without ceasing to be God. The Transfiguration (e.g. Matt 17) clearly testifies to this, as does St. Peter's declaration (which is said to be a revelation from God) in Matt 16, where He declares, not merely that Jesus is the Messiah, but also "the Son of the living God." Although, Peter clearly did not fully understand what this meant until after the Resurrection. And, lastly, your conclusion that it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus' mother was a Virgin (esp. prior to His birth) is a modernist heresy and a foolish point of view. What such a position actually does is undermine the reality of Christ's Incarnation and the reality and objectivity of His Divinity. The union between the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, which resulted in the physical Incarnation of Jesus Christ --that is, Mary's self-donation to become the God-man's mother (Luke 1:38) is, properly understood, the culmination and physical manifestation of the "marriage Covenant" between God and Israel found all throughout the Old Testament --Mary as a covenantal personification of Israel (the Scriptural "Daughter of Zion"). If one denies the Virgin conception/birth as an objective and historical reality, one might as well deny the historical reality of Christ Himself and reduce Christianity to a purely relativistic and humanistic religion in which we have just decided to call Jesus God (when He supposedly is not in any objective or real sense). What's more, as if it even needs to be said, the Bible itself says that Jesus was conceived and born miraculously of a Virgin. If you deny this as an objective reality, you might as well reject the rest of what the New Testament says and embrace the same position as the early pagan critics of the Church who argued that the Gospel was merely a collection of clever myths with no basis in historical fact (see 2 Peter 1:16). Do you really wish to follow their example? And, if you choose to do so, by what standard do you decide what parts of the New Testament to believe and what parts to cast aside? Is this merely to be based on your personal fancy? On what "sounds good" to you vs. what you do not like? Lastly, even if one accepts the Virgin Birth but maintains that Joseph and Mary had a normal married life after that time, such a person not only ignores the comprehensive teaching of Scripture (e.g. St. Augustine's insightful exegesis of Luke 1:28-38 which proves Mary and Joseph's commitment to marital chastity), but such a person is totally divorced from the way ancient people viewed sacred things ---things that were consecrated to God, as was Mary's body. This of course would have been the sensibility of a "righteous man," as St. Joseph is described. Hope that helps.
Pax Christi
Mark Bonocore
PART 2
Dear Pax Christi & Mark J. Bonocore,
Thanks for the detailed reply. Generally, it was really informative and educative. Some details are stereotyped. Some of the arguments are supported by references other than from the Bible (persons or studies) whose authenticity may be questionable.
Dear "Dr." Lareau. :-) Forgive me if this seems combative or uncharitable, but if you want me to accept you as an educated authority, you would do well to brush up on your Latin first. :-) "Pax Christi" is not a name, but my salutation. It means "Christ's Peace" in Latin. I was wishing you the peace of Christ. Again, not to be combative, but one would think that a true PhD in Christian studies would know that. You also write ....
I am a bit disappointed to see the use of “modernist heresy and a foolish point of view” (a bit non-Christian usage) in your reply. That shows some intolerance.
Does it? Well, if so, then it is intolerance in accord with Scripture, which tells us to 'test everything and retain only what is good,' and to rebuke heresy when and where we find it. The views you are professing are modernist and heretical ones which contradict the Apostolic faith. If you continue to hold to them, you will have to give an account for that.
I fully agree with the virgin birth of Jesus. Whatever is said in the Bible, I agree 100% (then only one can be a Christian believer).
Well, if you personally believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, that of course is a good thing. However, it is a mistake to (as you do) imply that Jesus' Virgin Birth is an issue on which Christians are free to disagree. It is not. Christ's Virgin Birth is a dogma of the Apostolic Faith. Those who deny it are not Christians, but something else.
You wrote…"And, if you choose to do so, by what standard do you decide what parts of the New Testament to believe and what parts to cast aside? Is this merely to be based on your personal fancy? ...On what "sounds good" to you vs. what you do not like?" I believe the entire New Testament. What I dislike is the misinterpretations given by the (so called) Biblical thinkers.
I see. And you yourself are not one of those "Biblical thinkers"? In other words, your subjective interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, whereas the interpretations of others are not. Okay, fine. How do you know that this is the case?? :-) How do you know that you are reading the Bible correctly, whereas we Catholics (for example ...who have read the Bible the same way for the past 2,000 years) are not? Here, Dr. Lareau, you make the classic Protestant mistake of failing to distinguish between the objective content of Scripture (which is the interpretative province of the Spirit-guided Catholic Church) and your own, personal, purely-subjective interpretation of Scripture ---the very thing condemned in 2 Peter 1:20. But, you go on ....
For example, you wrote… "What we can say with complete certainty, however, is that there were at least 3 Marys at the Cross: Jesus mother (John 19:25), Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and John, who is called Mary of Clopas in John's Gospel." You say with complete certainty, but in the Bible, nowhere it is written that Mary the mother of James and John, who is called Mary of Clopas.
That is correct. But, that is not what my statement referred to. When I spoke of "complete certainty," I was referring to the fact that there were, according to Scripture, at least 3 Marys at the Cross/Tomb throughout the Gospels. You simply cannot deny this: 1) The Virgin Mary (John 19:25) 2) Mary Magdalene (Matt 27 & 28 / Mark 15 & 16 / Luke 24 / John 19:25) 3) Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Matt 27 & 28 / Mark 15 & 16 / Luke 24) ...and ... 4) Mary of Clopas, the "sister" of Jesus' mother (John 19:25), who is apparently the same woman as Mary the mother of James and Joseph in the Synoptics. 1, 2, and 3 above are completely certain. You cannot deny this. And, in response to your implication that "Mary the mother of James Joses" in Matt 27&28, Mark 15&16, and Luke 24 could be Jesus' mother, it is also completely certain that another Mary, --"Mary of Clopas," who is called the Virgin Mary's "sister" (tribal relative) in John 19:25, was also at the Cross/Tomb, and this woman is almost certainly, or at least the best candidate to be, the woman referred to in Matt 27&28 / Mark 15&16 / Luke 24 ---that is, the mother of James. In other words, one has to seriously look at her before looking at the Virgin Mary, because ...
a) There is absolutely no implication that the Mary (the mother of James and Joseph) cited in Matt 27&28 / Mark 15&16 / Luke 24 is Jesus' mother.
b) She is twice called "the other Mary" by Matthew ---that is, a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. This is in stark contrast to Matthew's treatment of the Virgin Mary, who is a central character in his Gospel.
c) Whenever they are referring to Jesus' mother Mary, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (who also wrote Acts) always refer to her as Jesus' mother, even after the Crucifixion and Resurrection (Acts 1:14)
d) Ancient Christians universally believed that Jesus' mother Mary remained a life-long Virgin after His birth and did not give birth to other children. Are you claiming that these early Christians couldn't read??? That they overlooked the supposed "clear content" of the Bible? And this when they were all native speakers of Biblical Greek, whereas you are reading a translation.
e) Granting that the term brother/sister refers to Jewish tribal relatives, if Mary of Clopas and Jesus' mother Mary were "sisters" (two biological sisters both named "Mary"? Come on! ;-), it therefore follows that James was called the "brother" of Jesus because of the tribal relationship between their two mothers.
f) According to the early Christian witness, the man called "James the brother of the Lord" was 1) older than Jesus (and so could not be His brother via Mary), 2) was a Levite who was permitted to enter the Holy Place in the Temple (this, according to the 2nd Century JEWISH Christian St. Hegessipus recorded in Eusebius' History of the Church). If James was a Levite, then he could not possibly have been the son of Jesus' foster father Joseph (the husband of Mary) because Joseph was a Judahite of the house and family of King David. The Levites were from another line. And this alone proves that James and Jesus were not literal brothers; and if the term "brother" falls once, it falls every time as a literal meaning. And we can add plenty more proofs against your literal interpretation to this list.
You also wrote…"The union between the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, which resulted in the physical Incarnation of Jesus Christ --that is, Mary's self-donation to become the God-man's mother (Luke 1:38) is, properly understood, the culmination and physical manifestation of the "marriage Covenant" between God and Israel found all throughout the Old Testament --Mary as a covenantal personification of Israel (the Scriptural "Daughter of Zion"). The above are your observations only, not from the Bible.
The above is the ancient and consistent Apostolic teaching of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church ---the authority which Scripture calls "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). You error is rooted in your failure to submit to this Christ-established authority (per Heb 13:17) and your embrace of the 16th Century man-made tradition of "Bible alone," which is clearly not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact, the Bible teaches precisely the opposite. The Church that Christ established is the ultimate custodian of the Gospel, Dr. Lareau, not the Bible apart from the Church. This is why you fail to properly appreciate the importance of the Virgin Birth and/or the full significance of Christ's Incarnation.
Luke 1:37: For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. I wonder how people dare to give such interpretations.
"People" do not "dare" such interpretations, Doctor. :-) If you understood Christian history (which you obviously do not), you would know that this was the teaching and interpretation of the Apostles themselves --that is, the consistent, 2,000-year-old understanding of the universal Church (2 Thess 2:15). What's more, if you bother to read the Old Testament thoroughly, you will see the significance of Mary calling herself the Lord's "handmaid" and see how this is a personification of Israel and God's "marital" relationship with Israel, which is consistently depicted throughout the OT as Yahweh's poetic "Wife" or "Bride" --a reference to the covenantal intimacy between God and the Chosen People. Mary is the culmination and climax of this covenantal intimacy --the NT type of the OT "Daughter of Zion" and "Ark of the Covenant" ---the promised woman of Gen 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14. It is in her personal body that the intimacy of the OT Covenant is manifested and fulfilled ---the union between God and Israel (personified by Mary) literally producing the Messiah ---the Incarnate Christ. And, if you do not appreciate this Biblical truth, it is no wonder why you flippantly reduce the Virgin Birth to a mere "opinion" which a Christian is (supposedly) free to accept or deny.
Please read the following again (I am sure that you must have read it many times, but without interpreting them, this time) before making any Biblical interpretations: Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. I think in an attempt to glorify human beings, we are humiliating the God
Again, "Doctor," please allow me to advance your education and to place things in proper context for you. Now, like many Fundamentalist Protestants, you apparently assume that the verses cited above (Rev 22:18-19) refer to the Bible as a whole --that no one may "add" to the Bible, etc., and so we Catholics are apparently "guilty" of "adding to" and distorting the Word of God. :-) However, a little authentic history helps correct this misconception on your part. First of all, Rev 22:18-19 does not refer to the Bible as a whole. The Bible as we have it today was not bound together as one book until the early Middle Ages. Before that time, the books of the New Testament (for example) existed as separate scrolls kept in individual clay jars in the various Apostle-established city-churches. What's more, it was not until the year A.D. 397 (at the regional council of Carthage ---a council called at the initiative of Pope St. Damasus I) that the present canon of the New Testament was formally defined for the universal Church. Before that time, each city-church had its own local Biblical canon; and these local canons sometimes excluded certain books found in our present NT canon (e.g. the Epistle of James, 2 Peter, etc.) and sometimes they included certain books that the council of Carthage excluded from our present NT canon (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, 1 Clement to the Corinthians, etc.). For example, .as late as A.D. 321 (only 76 years before the council of Carthage), here's what Eusebius of Caesarea says about the state of the NT canon throughout the various city-churches in his day:
"Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." --Historia Ecclesia, Book III, Chapter 25
And he goes on:
"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd (i.e., The Shepherd of Hermes), and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles (the Didache); and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John (i.e., the BOOK OF REVELATION), if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books." --Ibid
So, as late as A.D. 321, the Book of Revelation was not universally recognized as part of the Bible, Dr. Lareau. :-) In fact, it would not have made it into our present canon at all if St. Augustine of Hippo had not fought for its inclusion at the council of Carthage in A.D. 397. So, its presence in the Bible today is thanks to the very Catholic St. Augustine. :-) So, with this authentic knowledge now before you, you simply cannot claim that Rev 22:18-19 refers to adding things to the content of Scripture itself or use it to promote your man-made "Bible alone" heresy ---which, again, was invented by the 16th Century Protestant reformers (no orthodox Christian believing in the principal of "Bible alone" before that time). What Rev 22:18-19 REALLY refers to is adding things to the Book of Revelation itself --to that particular scroll. It was quite common for the early enemies of the Church to forge the writings of the Apostles or for heretics to try to add things to them when they were copied from scroll to scroll (see 2 Thess 2:2, etc.). This is what is being forbidden in Rev 22:18-19, not the reality or continuation of extra-Scriptural Apostolic oral Tradition, which is of course is promoted and approved elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Corinth 11:2, etc.). And, speaking of Apostolic oral Tradition, this is not something that we Catholics "add" to Scripture. Rather, it is something that comes down to us hand-in-hand with Scripture itself. For the Apostles entrusted the Gospel truths to the Church in two distinct forms: 1) Scripture and 2) oral Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). Indeed, if it was not for Apostolic oral Tradition, you would not even know what the Bible itself is, since it is based on the Traditional authority of the Catholic Church that you get your present Biblical canon! It is the oral authority of the Catholic Church that tells you what the books of the New Testament are ---that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Divinely inspired Gospels with Apostolic authority. Not one verse of Scripture itself tells you this. The Scriptures never give you a list of what books belong in the Bible. And so, since you accept your Biblical canon based on oral Tradition (the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church) for you clearly do not get your canon from some list provided by Scripture itself are you and your fellow Protestants then "guilty" of "adding to" Scripture?? Of course not. And, if you are not guilty of this, then neither are we. Indeed, if you accept this oral Tradition of the Catholic Church (e.g. the Divine inspiration of Matthew's Gospel, as opposed to some non-inspired heretical work like the so-called Gospel of Thomas), what gives you the right to discard the other formal Traditions held by the Catholic Church??? For, the same Catholic Church that defined the canon of the Bible for you in A.D. 397, also clearly believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), and the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and in Purgatory, and in other Apostolic doctrines which Fundamentalist Protestants like yourself reject. So, why do you feel that you can have it both ways?? Clearly, if you are an honest Christian who is committed to objective truth, you cannot. History stands against you, Dr. Lareau. And, as John Henry Newman once said, "To go into history deeply is to cease to be Protestant." I place that challenge before you, since you seek to be an educated man. If you are going to embrace the truth, have the courage to embrace ALL of the truth. Learn the authentic history. Learn what your ancient, Apostolic Christian forefathers really believed. Then you will understand what you are reading in Scripture. Right now, you obviously have a few problems in that area, as I have illustrated above. Indeed, I find it most hypocritical of you to accuse me and others of being "Bibical thinkers" with presumptuous interpretations, when you yourself are clearly guilty of this and when you yourself clearly lack authentic understanding so as to 'remove the splinter from my eye' when there is clearly a 'plank (beam) in your own.' :-) And I do not say any of this to be rude or to be hard on you, Dr. Lareau. Rather, as a fellow Christian, I call you to honesty and to truth. Are you able to respond to that? I certainly hope so.
(You wrote: . The union between the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit…). Luke 1:37 is the answer for this. How dare you think that God had a union with a human being? God will not have union (or the term you might have in mind) with anybody. He created Adam from Dust. He created the Universe from nothing. Also, nobody cant kill the God (if God dies means that is not the God).
I see. So, now you even deny the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ?? that is, His being fully God and fully man. For, that's what resulted from the spiritual union between God and Mary. However, if Jesus was not both fully-God and fully-man, He simply could not be both the "Alpha and Omega" (that is, the eternal God as He is called in Revelation) and the "New Adam" (that is, a true man as He is called in Romans). So, once again, you deny the clear content of Scripture and twist it to suit your misconceptions. Very sad. Luke 1:37 (if you bother to read the context) refers to the fact that it is possible for God to make a Virgin conceive without the participation of a man (see: v.34). It also refers to how it is possible for God to allow an old, barren woman to conceive via natural means (see v. 36). Luke 1:37 is NOT claiming that Jesus received His human nature independently from Mary. Rather, as Scripture clearly reveals, Jesus obtained His humanity (His human nature) FROM His human mother which was the very reason for the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. Jesus is a Jew BECAUSE His mother is a Jew. For example, check out the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23-38, which traces His biological (human) descent from Adam. If Jesus did not obtain His human nature from Mary (from whom He also got His succession from King David: Romans 1:3 otherwise He could not be the promised Messiah), then Luke 3:23ff and Romans 1:3 are wrong. Are you sure you want to say that??? Well, if not ...if you accept the fact that Jesus received His human nature from His human mother Mary, then you must accept the Catholic (ancient Christian) belief that Luke 1:38 represents an intimate, Covenantal union between God and Mary herself --Mary being the culmination and climate of God's intimate union/covenant with Israel --the means by which the eternal Son of God got His humanity, His "Jewishness" and His succession from David so as to be the Promised Messiah. If you eliminate Mary from the mix, then you have to deny all these things and conclude that Jesus was not really human, not really Jewish, and not really the Messiah. Your choice. Our Catholic position is comprehensive and consistent. Yours is disjointed and heterodox. "A tree is known by its fruit."
You require better understanding of God (full understanding is impossible by human beings).
Do I? :-) Try looking in a mirror, "Doctor" Lareau. Before you present yourself as my teacher, you would do well to know what you are talking about first. I have no problem accepting instruction from those who know the Christian Faith better than me. Yet, you clearly do not and need to find yourself a reliable teacher of your own.
Please Read the following (again): Ex 19: 18: And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. Acts 2:1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3: And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Please understand that God doesn’t have a religion.
Really? Well, we Christians do. :-) The inspired Word in James 1:26-27 says so, clearly describing Christianity as a "religion." So, do you accept the Word of God or not, Dr. Lareau? What's more, while God is certainly beyond all human comprehension, He did reveal certain things to us and established a Covenant with us. He has bound Himself to this revelation and this Covenant (i.e, this religion), and so in that sense God does "have" a religion, for He is faithful to His Covenant with us. There is no such thing as a one-sided Covenant (a one-sided "relationship"). God does not change or contradict Himself, but is faithful and consistent.
God is the God. Ex 3:14: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Yep. The establishment of a Covenant. :-) In this case, the Old Covenant. But, we now have a New Covenant, Dr. Lareau ---a new Chosen People has been established (1 Peter 2:9-10), and this is the universal, 2,000-year-old Covenant people known as the Catholic Church. So, why don't you belong to it? All of your Christian forefathers (until at least the 16th Century --that is, only 400 years ago) did.
It is advisable to read the books of other religions also to understand what they say about God (there cannot be more than one God, who created everything).
Agreed. But, again, I would advise that you learn a little bit more about the authentic history and beliefs of Apostolic Christianity, so that you may understand the things of God more correctly.
I would like to know your thinking about the God (who created everything).
Okay. What would you specifically like to know? "God," needless to say, is a very big topic. :-) Yes, He created everything, both through natural means and supernatural means. What more would you like me to focus on?
PART 3
Dear Mark J.
Bonocore I have a PhD in Engineering (not in Latin or Christian
Studies), I do not know even a single word of Latin (I never
needed it). God understands all
languages.
Yes indeed He does, Doctor. However, most of us of course do not. Thus, when we approach the Sacred Text of Scripture (which of course is written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic), it is important to have some understanding of those languages and the cultural sensibilities attached to them if we are to understand Scripture correctly. It is likewise of course a mistake to apply our modern, English-speaking sensibilities to Scripture, given that this can significantly distort its intended meaning. Do you not agree? Also, since you are a PhD in Engineering, please forgive my earlier remarks which, as I said, were not meant to ridicule your lack of knowledge in this area, but to illustrate it. I assuming that you were presenting yourself as a ThD or an authority on Christianity. As a doctor of Engineering, I'm sure you would feel the same way in my regard if I misapplied dynamics relating to structural design and physics, which are your area of expertise.
I am not a Biblical thinker (a common man). When reading the New Testament deeper, my conscience said that many of my current practices and prayers (as was taught to me) were not in good taste of the Bible.
I see. But, in order for our consciences to be effective and in accord with the Truth of Christ, one must have an informed conscience. Isn't that so? In other words, one must know that they are reading Scripture correctly (per Acts 8:30-31) so as not to distort its intended meaning (per 2 Peter 3:15-16). Wouldn't you agree? So, are you positive that your conscience is correctly formed? That you correctly understand what you are reading in the Bible? Needless to say, there is not one verse of the New Testament that describes in any detail how the early Christians conducted their formal worship. Thus, the danger here (which most Protestant fall into) is that they allow their modern imaginations to "fill in the gaps" and assume that they understand how the early Christians worshipped. Yet, once one looks into the historical evidence, the reality is quite different. In other words, from earliest times, the worship and prayer life of the ancient Christians was very Catholic. A visit to the 1st Century catacombs of St. Lareau in Rome (which are the oldest catacombs in Rome) will show you this. Indeed, as the famous convert from Evangelicalism, Dr. Thomas Howard, once put it, 'If an ancient Christian were to walk into a modern, Evangelical church on a given Sunday, there would be nothing there that this ancient Christian would recognize as worship." That's how different modern Protestantism is from the actual Liturgical worship of the early Church. But, I wonder if you yourself are aware of this? I wonder if you are at all interested in the historical reality or if Christian history matters to you. Christianity is a historical faith, is it not?
That is, I had a FAITH CRISIS.
Well, a faith crisis can sometimes be a very good thing. :-) But, as with any crisis, one must deal with it maturely and with patience in order to arrive at a sensible solution. Surely, you background in Engineering shows you this. If the structure is under stress, a "quick fix" is not always the best thing to do. Rather, things must be built on firm and true foundations, even as Jesus Himself says.
I approached my friends, relatives, and even priests (they also have similar feelings), but were helpless.
Well, you evidently didn't approach the right Catholic friends or priests. :-)
Then I tried through the Web. I got into many sites (mostly individual sites, including yours). Many of them are raising similar questions to that of mine, but I found that they don’t have any answers other than questions. Then I thought of asking (direct and indirect) questions to you. I am not a protestant. I have read only very few articles of the protestants (that too from the Web). This is the background.
Okay. You may not be a Protestant, Dr. Lareau, but, from your earlier emails, you most clearly express several Protestant and several liberal-modernist ideas. I urge you to seriously question them.
You have now introduced me a new school of thinking (at least to me) that our God is married to the Zion’s daughter!
Well, that is far from a "new" school of thinking, Doctor. :-) Rather, it is the ancient belief of all Christians. Keeping in mind that the "Daughter of Zion" is a symbol of Israel --the Chosen People, we see this idea of God being symbolically "married" to Israel all throughout the Old Testament --a reference to God's intimate Covenant with Israel. The Book of Hosea is a classic example of this (e.g. Hosea 2:21 ...also, compare Hosea 2:16 to Rev 12:6). And this metaphor of God's Covenant with the Chosen People (the intimacy of the Covenant being like a marriage) will eventually develop, in the New Testament, into the concept of Jesus' marriage to the Church ---that is, Christ as "the Bridegroom" (per John 3:29, etc.) and the Church as His "Bride" (see Eph. 5:25-32). There is nothing unusual about this motif. All Catholics and Protestants admit that it exists. The only thing that we Catholics appreciate that most Protestants do not is that the Incarnation of Christ, which was brought about by the covenantal union of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:38) represents the culmination and climax, and the very physical (Incarnational) manifestation, of God's intimate union with the Chosen People --Mary being the ultimate representative of that OT Chosen People. This is why Mary, in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, becomes an image of the Church itself just as she is in Rev 12:1-3, etc.
Is there any better way of humiliating the God?
"Humiliating God"?? :-) I beg to differ, Dr. Lareau. Does Eph. 5:25-32 "humiliate God" when it speaks about the marital unity of Christ and His Church? As I've said, your understanding of these things is a deluded and most irrational and immature one. You are not looking at this correctly. But, you go on ...
Now based on your
theories, a parallel can be drawn with the Hinduism.
Your God
Hindu God
Trinity (with three persons) Trimurty (with
three persons)
Married to Zion’s Daughter Married to
three goddesses
Saints (as mediators)
gods/goddesses (as mediators)
Uh, ..... :-) I'm sorry, Doctor, but your comparison above is nothing short of loonie. I will assume that you are able to appreciate why I say this, and so explain: First of all, we do not believe that God is literally married to Mary or the Church/Israel in the sense that Hindus and other pagans believe that their gods marry each other ---that is, have physical relations with one another. Rather, when we speak of marriage to God (as Paul does in Ephes 5:25-32), we speak in the sense of a metaphor --a way of describing the covenantal intimacy between God and Israel, or God and the Church, or God and Mary herself (as the culmination of Israel --the promised woman of Isaiah 7:14 --and as the first member of the Church; the very to accept Christ: Luke 1:38). So, there is no pagan dimension here. What's more, we do not believe that Mary or any of the saints are gods or goddesses. Rather, they are fellow Christians who happen now to be "with Christ" (Phil 1:23); and we believe that their prayers are powerful before God because, as I said before, SCRIPTURE SAYS SO (James 5:16). So, what about this do you find hard to understand, Doctor? For, by denying that our fellow Christians in Heaven can pray for us (per James 5:16) what you are REALLY saying is that Christ is a liar. Why? Because, in Matt 16:18, Jesus directly says that "the gates of hell will not prevail" against His Church. The word "hell" here in Greek is actually the word "Hades," which was the "realm of the dead" --the equivalent of the Hebrew term "Sheol" (the realm of the dead). So, what Jesus is really saying is that DEATH ITSELF will not prevail against the Church or divide its unity --unity rooted in love. So, the Body of Christ (the Church) is ONE, both on earth and in Heaven. You, however, by denying that saints in Heaven can pray for us, imply that the Body of Christ is divided --that death HAS prevailed against the unity of His Church. Are you sure you really want to say that??
In your table above, you compare the Blessed Trinity (e.g. Matt 28:19) to a Hindu "trimunity" I assume you refer to the three chief Hindu gods Vishnu, Shiva, and Brama. Only one problem with this, Doctor. :-) Unlike orthodox Christians, the Hindus do not believe that Vishnu, Shiva, and Brama are "One in Being." The Father, Son, and Spirit are One in Being, whereas Vishnu, Shiva, and Brama are distinct and separate gods unto themselves. What's more, the Hindus do not believe that their three chief gods are eternal or co-eternal. Rather, they believe that they had an origin in time and space. We believe that the Triune God is eternal, and that Father, Son, and Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal. Yet, with all this said, in an earlier email, you said that you accept all the truths of the Bible. So, you now deny the Trinity? It certainly seems as if you do. And, if you do deny the Trinity --that is, if you interpret Scripture differently than Catholics and other Trinitarian (orthodox) Christians do, then what on earth do you do with Matt 28:19 --that is, Scripture's reference to a Father, Son, and Spirit? Are these three "separate Gods" for you? If so, you've just departed from monotheism and denied the Old Testament. Or do you believe, as the ancient Sabellian heretics did, and as modern so-called "Oneness Pentecostals" do, that Father, Son, and Spirit are just three "manifestations" of the same Divine Person??? That is, different "masks" worn by the same Divine Person. If so, do you then believe that the Father died on the Cross along with the Son? :-) If so, then how could the Father (as Scripture says) have raised the Son from the dead?? Or would you then say that Jesus never truly died, but merely appeared to? If that's the case, then we are still in our sins. So, these is the kind of problems you create for yourself when you approach Christian theology in the immature and reactionary way that you do.
At least in terms of the number of God wives, Hinduism is better! Hindu philosophy describes God at a much higher level than the Christian philosophy
Does it? :-) I don't think so. Christianity recognizes God to be a transcendent Being Who is beyond the realm of the created universe ---the universe being His Creation, and so totally dependent upon Him (e.g. "In Him we live, and move, and have our being" --Acts 17:28) Hinduism, however, sees "God" (their version of God) as the universe itself ---the universe/God being divided into billions of various aspects of the universe, all of which are "parts of God" or gods unto themselves (including you and me ;-)). So, I would say that the Judeo-Christian view of God is FAR higher than the very pagan Hindu view. God is not the universe, but is beyond the universe and superior to it. The universe merely reflects His glory.
Christianity is more materialistic and human oriented than Hinduism or Buddhism.
Wrong. That is a liberal-modernist view rooted in a complete failure to properly understand Christianity. It is the view of the hippies in the 1960s who wanted to downplay Christianity because it was the "religion of their parents" and so they equated it with American materialism and humanism, etc.and assumed that the Eastern religions were more "pure and spiritual." They were mistaken. :-) However, this view persists today among liberal academics, and you have evidently fallen for it. I urge you to reconsider your assumptions.
On realizing this, now many Christians are opting for Hinduism.
The Bible predicts how many people would fall away to follow false doctrines. Ironically, American Christians do this to rebel against dysfunctional, nominally "Christian" families that are prone to materialism, yet adopt a religion (or aspects of a religion) that is even more dysfunctional! :-) One only need look at the state of modern India to see what Hinduism did to that country. If "everything is God," then the sovereignty of man over Creation (per Genesis 1:27-28) is turned on its head and the result is chaos in human society --e.g. putting cows and other horned animals (who represent the god Vishnu) before your fellow man, etc.
Can your virginity/ marriage covenant theories prevent it?
First of all, what you are referring to is not a "theory." It is an essential aspect of the Apostolic Faith. Secondly, as I said, the Bible itself states that some Christians will split off from the Church to follow false doctrines (e.g. 1 Tim 4:1-2).
You have questioned the sanctity of the Bible itself (saying that because of the mercy of certain individuals from the Church, it has the present content/ shape).
I have done no such thing.
Rather, I have shared with you the REALITY of where our Bible
comes from. It is based entirely on the infallible,
Spirit-guided authority of the Catholic Church, which
received the Spirit of Truth on Pentecost --a Spirit of
Truth Whom Christ promised would REMAIN with His Church
ALWAYS (John 14:16-17), leading it to ALL TRUTH (John 16:13), and
thus making the Church, and not the Bible apart from the
Church, the "pillar and foundation of Truth" (1
Tim 3:15). Even Martin Luther himself admitted as
much in regard to the canon of the Bible: "We are
obliged to yield many things to the [Roman] Catholics --[for
example] that they possess the Word of God, which we
received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing about
it." (Martin Luther, Comm. on John
16)
So, your 16th Century, man-made (Protestant) presumption of
"Bible alone" is wrong. Rather, it is the
Catholic Church that is the ultimate authority ---the
"pillar and foundation of Truth," just as Paul calls
them Church in 1 Tim 3:15. The ultimate authority is
not the Bible apart from the Church. So, your
very Protestant interpretation of Rev 22:18-19 cannot stand
because a) It does not refer to the whole Bible; and this is
because b) the Bible was not formally canonized (made into one
formal collection of books, to the exclusion of all others) until
A.D. 397 by the Catholic Church at the
Council of Carthage. You can either accept this
historical fact or you can bury your head in the
sand. Which do you choose to do, Doctor?
I know that printing started with Guttenberg.
Guttenberg was in the late 15th / early 16th Century. And he too was a Catholic, by the way. :-) But, I'm not talking about the 16th Century, Doctor. I'm talking about over 1,000 years earlier than that --the late 4th Century. That's when the Bible was first canonized (about 360 years after Pentecost!). And the bishops who canonized it were profoundly Catholic, believing in what Catholics believe today, but which Protestants and people like yourself reject. You need to come to terms with this historical fact if you are someone committed to objective truth. Otherwise, please feel free to persist in your delusions.
The Vedas and Upanishads of the Hindus are about 1500 or more years older than the New Testament.
So what? The pagan Sumerian-Babylonian Enuma Elisha is about 1,000 years older than that. It doesn't make any of these things true. They are pagan mythologies; and we have no problem admitting that paganism is older than Judeo-Christianity. Abraham was a Mesopotamian pagan before the Lord called him --before the beginning of Divine revelation.
Hindus believe that they convey the message of God.
Fine. I believe they are incorrect. :-)
How those books were preserved? How the Old Testament was preserved?
They were preserved by the Hindu
priestly caste, Dr. Lareau; and the Hindu priestly caste was able
to do this because they were made totally separate from the rest
of the population and were revered as the connection between the
rest of the population and "divine power." Thus,
it was in the better interests to preserve
the "scriptures" that gave their caste
their power and authority in Hindu society. So, the
Vedas and Upanishads are old because the caste system in
India is old. Nothing surprising there. Likewise, the
Old Testament (as we know) was preserved in three stages:
The first stage was the Torah (the Law --the first 5 books of the
OT), which comes from the time of Moses. The second stage
(the Prophets) was canonized by the Great Assembly in the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah after the Jews' return from exile in
Babylon. And the third stage (known as the Writings) was
not canonized by the Jews until A.D. 90 at the school of
Jamnia --that is, AFTER the formal split between Judaism
and Christianity; and so that stage of the Jewish OT canon has
no binding authority on Christians. Rather, the early
Christians recognized certain OT Writings to be inspired by
God which were later rejected by the anti-Christian Jews at
Jamnia. And this is why the Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments have seven books that
are not found in the modern Jewish or Protestant Old
Testaments. The Protestants of the 16th Century
mistakenly assumed that the Jewish canon of their own day was the
canon recognized by Jesus and the Apostles in the 1st Century;
and so they adopted it. They did not know that the present
Jewish canon was formalized AFTER the Jews parted ways with the
Christian Church. So, that's where your OT comes
from, Doctor. Now you know.
I have
realized now that you don’t have any answers for my faith
crisis (you are of no help to me, other than escalating the
crisis)
On the contrary, Doctor. I
don't have the answers that you want to hear.
There's a difference. :-) But, everything I have told
you is the objective truth; and, as Scripture says, "The
truth will set you free" ...if you don't ignore
it.
Jesus
fascinates me by the obedience and passion for His heavenly
Father, and also by His passion for the fellow beings.
Well, I'm glad that He
"fascinates" you. Now, if you only understood Him
(and His relationship to the Father) properly, then
maybe you'd make some progress in your spiritual quest.
Right now, however, you are clearly going in the wrong
direction. Remember, I have told you this.
Your virginity
theories, marriage covenant, mediation, etc are applicable only
to human beings (not to the true living God).
Wrong. In saying this, you undermine the very reality of the Incarnation of Christ and the mercy of God which brings about the Incarnation of Christ ---that is, God's desire for true intimacy with us. Your view of God is a sophomoric one. You think you are being "spiritual," but you are being just the opposite. You are placing limits on God due to His spiritual nature and presuming that God's spiritual nature makes it impossible or unrealistic for Him to want to share in our human nature or to lead us to share in His Divine nature (per 2 Peter 1:4), which of course is what the Incarnation of Christ is really all about. In short, the reason that you have such trouble with the Virgin Birth and with Mary's remaining a Virgin after Christ's Birth (her total covenantal commitment to God) is because you do not really believe in the Incarnation of Christ, but (at best, perhaps) in a distorted version of it. That is very sad.
Some people create God in their resemblance (than God creates man in His resemblance).
Yes. And, I am telling you right now: You yourself are guilty of this. You twist the Scriptures out of their intended context and distort the reality of Jesus Christ. And you do this without being willing to listen to reason or to consider the validity of Christian orthodoxy. Remember, I have told you so.
The voice is God means He is without a visible body.
I do not claim that God the Father
or that God the Holy Spirit has a physical Body. When the
Holy Spirit enters into a marriage-like covenant with Mary (read:
with the Church) in Luke 1:38, this in no sense
implies a physical relationship, as with a man and a woman.
Again, one needs to be more mature that that to understand the
truth. Rather, the intimate SPIRITUAL union between
the Spirit and Mary/Israel/the Church, which Scripture metaphorically compares
to a marriage (per Rev 22:17) resulted in the very real and
physical Incarnation of Jesus Christ. That is the
point. Christ is the literal, physical fulfillment
of the promise made by the Old Covenant between God and Israel
--per Isaiah 7:14. But, you are missing it. And, from
the time of the Incarnation of Christ on, we can say that God (in
the Person of God the Son --Jesus Christ) DOES have a visible
Body. Colossians 1:15 says so. Speaking of Jesus, it
says ... "He is the [visible] images of the invisible
God." This is the significance of the
Incarnation, Doctor. But, you seem to be missing it
entirely.
My God is
above all these, the Almighty God.
So is mine. :-) But, unlike "your God," my God is not limited when it comes to subtle or humble things. "Your God" is evidently unable to be humble or merciful --to "stoop to our level" in order to call us to holiness. This is why I say your view of God is "sophomoric" -- immature. For, in seeing God as something "big," you limit Him to being "big," and so make Him something less than omnipotent. For, if God is truly omnipotent and truly inscrutable (as Scripture says), there is nothing to prevent Him from doing what fallen man would never guess that He would do ---that is, "empty Himself, taking on the form of a slave," as St. Paul says, speaking of the Incarnation. For, we do not believe that Christ was merely God "disguised" as a man or some kind of "super-man." Rather, we believe that the Almighty God (He Who made the stars and the universe) TRULY and LITERALLY became a man --that is, one of us, being born of a woman as a helpless baby who couldn't talk or feed Himself and needed to be cared for by His now-true and literal human mother. THIS is an awesome God, Dr. Lareau. A God Who is FAR more awesome that the "God" of your perception; and I challenge you to appreciate the reality of this God as He is revealed in the pages of Scripture.
He may be Trinity (but not definitely 3 persons as you educated me – God is not a person).
Well, if you knew Greek and Latin, you would not make that mistake, Doctor. The word "person" (which was used at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 to define the Trinity) does not mean a "human being" as it is commonly used in modern English. Rather, a "person" simply means a "who," whereas a "nature" means a "what." The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is only one "What" (one God --one Divine NATURE), in three distinct "Whos" (three Divine PERSONS). That's all that it means. In other words, God has three distinct identities in only One essence. And here's how it works: First off, we believe that God is eternal --that He has no beginning and no end. Secondly, we believe that Jesus revealed to us that God's fundamental character is that of an all-loving Father --that being a Father is what ultimately defines God. But, if God is both eternal and fundamentally a Father, then WHO (notice the word "who") was He a Father TO before the universe was made??? Clearly, one cannot be a "Father" unless one is a Father TO someone else --another distinct PERSON (another "WHO"). The answer, of course, is that there was no one else but God. Thus, He was and is a Father TO HIMSELF. And so, the eternal Father eternally begets an eternal Son within His own Divine nature and essence; and the Holy Spirit is the eternal procession of Personal Love between the eternal Father and the eternal Son. This is what we mean by the Trinity, Doctor. You apparently have never been taught this.
God created every visible and invisible thing by His own means.
Yes. But, the same Creed that tells you this (you are getting it from the Nicene Creed) also defines the Trinity as I described above. So, you cannot pick and choose. It has to be all or nothing. :-)
Nothing created (including persons) can be God.
Again, a "person" is not a human being. A "person" (as used in our definition of the Trinity) is a "Who." Clearly, even you believe that God is at least one "Who" and that He didn't have to create the concept of a "Who," right? :-) ...e.g. "I Am WHO Am."
He is without beginning and end.
Yep. He is three distinct Divine persons WHO are without beginning and without end, consubstantial in one Divine nature and essence which is without beginning and without end.
He is approachable by any of the living things so that he doesn’t have any mediators.
He doesn't have any mediators??? :-) So, Christ isn't the one Mediator (per 1 Tim 2:5)? What are you really trying to say here, Doctor? Either Christ alone is the Mediator with the Father (which is what 1 Tim 2:5 says, and what we Catholics believe) or everybody and everything has direct access to God, which is what you seem to be saying, and which smacks of Hinduism, not Christianity. Indeed, how can you complain about the mediation of Mary and the saints if, as you say above, "any of the livings things" can directly approach God? Of course, that is not the Catholic view of Mary and the other saints. Rather, our doctrine is clear and in perfect accord with Scripture: Christ alone is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" --the One Mediator between God the Father and mankind (1 Tim 2:5). He said it: "NO ONE comes to the Father except through me." But, we also believe that there are many mediators between mankind and Christ ---that Christians can pray for one another and intercede for one another (James 5:16) --that is, with Christ, Who in turn is the only Mediator with the Father. In other words, all prayer to the Father has to pass through Christ. So, what is your actual position here, Doctor? At first you seem to follow the Protestant preoccupation with 1 Tim 2:5 and object to the intercession of Mary and the saints because you think (as Fundamentalist Protestants do) that this threatens the sole Mediation of Christ with the Father (which of course it does not). Yet, now you imply that all creation has direct access to God the Father apart from Christ! ...and so contradict Scripture! So, which is it? Are you a fundamentalist or a modernist?? :-) You obviously can't be both.
Nobody can kill Him.
So, what are you saying? That Jesus didn't really die? Or that He wasn't really God?? Again, Doctor, your views seem very allusive, but are clearly heretical and contrary to Scripture. If Jesus Christ (Who was and is fully-God and fully-man) did not experience death, then we are still in our sins. And, if the Jesus Who died on the Cross was not fully-God (as well as being fully-man), then His death had no power to redeem us, since only the Sacrifice of a Divine Person could do that. So, which problematic position are you endorsing here?
His religion is love.
Uh-huh. And what does that mean? Can one have true love apart from truth? Or is truth an essential aspect of love?
We can make Him unpleasant only by disobeying him (either by humiliating Him or by not loving our fellow beings).
Wait a minute. :-) Above you said that God is eternal --that He has no beginning and no end. But, now you imply that we can "change Him" by our behavior --that He can literally get angry if we do something to offend Him. So, who's making the eternal God into a human-like character now. Doctor?? :-) Indeed, if, as you apparently depict Him, God is "so spiritual" and 'so far beyond us,' then why would He care what we do or react to it??? :-) UNLESS, He established an intimate, one-Flesh Covenant with us, as Scripture says. Also, per what I said above, God does not really change or really get angry as human beings get angry. Rather, He is always "ahead of the game" and knows (has always known) what we are going to do before we do it. But, contemplating the reality of this just ends up hurting a person's head. ;-)
All living things are parts of God (life comes only from God) and are striving to reach God.
You're again preaching Hinduism, Doctor. Judaism and Christianity do not believe that "all living things are parts of God." That is a Hindu doctrine. It is also invalid to equate the fact that life comes from God with the Hindu idea that "all living things are parts of God." Rather, while life comes from God, God is not merely "life." Rather, "life" is something that is distinct from Him --something that He made. For example, we can say that all light bulbs come from Thomas Edison (who invented them), but this in no way means that all light bulbs are "parts of" Thomas Edison. So, you are making unrealistic connections that are rooted in Hindu paganism and are not part of the Judeo-Christian revelation of God. Big mistake.
You may not accept my God as you are a blind believer of the teaching of the Church (that is what you claim)– more concerned with the interpretations than the plain truth in the Bible.
The "plain truth of the Bible" according to whose interpretation, Doctor?? Yours? Well, as we've already illustrated quite clearly, you do not have the understanding to interpret the Bible correctly, and thus you arrive at all sorts of strange and heretical doctrines. Take a good look at the Ethiopian in Acts 8:30-31. He is found reading the book of Isaiah. When Philip asks him if he understands what it means, the Ethiopian replies, "How can I unless someone interprets it for me?" This is what you are missing, Doctor. Following Luther's error, you have appointed yourself as your own Pope and have rejected the Traditional understanding of the Church. In this, you are in violation of Heb 13:17, and so in violation of Scripture itself. I don't see what could be any clearer. Also, if I am such a "blind believer in the teaching of the Church," how is it that I am able to rationally explain the Catholic Faith to you, when all you can do is (blindly) mischaracterize both my statements to you and the objective content of Scripture, language, and history? :-) Think about it. One of us has unquestionable objective truth on his side, and it isn't you. ...Not at this point, anyway. Yet, if you would like to discuss truth in a sane and reasonable way, I would be very happy to help you. But, if you merely wish to create your own religion based on your private fancy and embellishment from Hinduism and other pagan religions, hey ... Be my guest. It's your soul. Again, the invitation is always open.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
October 26, 2005