Hi Becky, My comments will have *K: before them. ... From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of RebeccaMessage 1 of 142 , Nov 1, 2005View SourceHi Becky,
My comments will have *K: before them.
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Rebecca Mandala
Sent: 27 October 2005 19:56
Subject: Re: Catholic Questions Re: Re the gospel of Thomas .... Jesus was
not a pretend man
OK, I looked at the finding in context. The NIV says: "After three days they
found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to
them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his
understanding and his answers."
Just because he was asking the questions doesn't mean he didn't know. He is
definitely portrayed as knowledgable and wise on a supernatural level here.
And in the following verses, he identified Himself as the Son of God before
being the son of Mary and Joseph. 49"Why were you searching for me?" he
asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"
*K: While I do believe that Jesus knew that God was His real father at age
12 I don't think this was what He was communicating to His parents.
Additionally while I do recognise that God the Father could have endowed
Jesus with a full revelation of His identity & of all knowledge while an
unborn child in the womb of Mary or a gurgling infant in Her arms ... (&
remember His parents WERE told that He was the emmanual ...God with us ...
born of God) ... such that hypothetically Jesus /could have/ been aware of
all knowledge past present & future as is God ... the scriptures make clear
this was not the case ... Jesus did not know all things while on earth. Some
(the times of Israels restoration) were the preserve of the Father alone.
Others ... the identity of who had touched Him .. required Him seeking the
answer & Him being told it by the woman with the flow of blood. We are told
that Jesus was tempted in ALL points like his breathren. Jesus could not
have been tempted like us unless He truely shared our nature. If Jesus did
not truely share in our limitations & weaknesses as humans He could not be
qualified to be our High Priest.
Heb 4:15 - For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that
He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God,
to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself
has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
*K: Was Jesus omnipresent, omniscient & omnipotent during the 33 years or so
of His life on earth Becky? I believe Pope Pius the 12th was not reflecting
catholic orthodoxy in either his statements or understanding.
*K: I do not believe it is possible to reconsile the statements of Pope pius
with the creeds or with the scriptures. I remain
convinced that the suggestion that Jesus was not a true human being ... &
limited in knowledge, power & presense as all other humans are, is contrary
to the historic understanding of all the main christian churches including
the catholic church and also the scriptures.
On 10/27/05, Rebecca Mandala <la.mama.loca@...> wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Marshall, Keith"
> Jesus did not know who had touched him regarding the woman with
the flow of
> blood. Jesus did not have all the answers when growing up ... nor
> initially an understanding of His own identity as the Son of God.
> the questions He was asking were real questions. Jesus grew in
> understanding .... He did not pretend to grow.
I believe that the traditional Catholic understanding actually has been that
Jesus DID always know that He was God. In the finding in the temple
sequence, He wasn't asking questions, He was answering them.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "catholicquestions" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Omprem, just like an apple is a type of fruit but not all fruits are apples... contraception is a form of birth control but not all birth control isMessage 142 of 142 , Nov 28, 2005View SourceOmprem,
just like an apple is a type of fruit but not all
fruits are apples...
contraception is a form of birth control but not all
birth control is contraceptive...
birth control is a way of preventing pregnancy - NFP
and Contraception are ways of doing this...
NFP = natural birth control
Contraception = artificial birth control
the Church says birth control is okay if it is done by
natural means with the proper reasons...
CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of
birth regulation based on self-observation and the use
of infertile periods, is in conformity with the
objective criteria of morality. These methods respect
the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness
between them, and favor the education of an authentic
freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in
anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its
accomplishment, or in the development of its natural
consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a
means, to render procreation impossible" is
Thus the innate language that expresses the total
reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is
overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively
contradictory language, namely, that of not giving
oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a
positive refusal to be open to life but also to a
falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love,
which is called upon to give itself in personal
totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological
and moral, between contraception and recourse to the
rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final
analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human
person and of human sexuality.
In Christ's Love,
--- omprem <omprem@...> wrote:
> "Omprem- what is your point in being here? What do__________________________________
> you hope to
> gain? What do you hope us to gain"
> I am a spiritual traveller engaging other spiritual
> Your comments on contraception methods is puzzling.
> One of
> your members said that contraception is an intrinsic
> evil. I noted
> that the Catholic Church promotes contraception and
> if that makes the Catholic Church evil. You reply
> that the church
> no longer uses the ryhthm method but not promotes
> that " is much more effective" at contraception. My
> question to
> you is, " If contraception is an intrinsic evil as
> the church says
> and if the church continues to promote ways of ever
> effective contraception, then is the church being
> two-faced or is it
> intrinsically evil in this instance?"
> --- In email@example.com,
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "omprem"
> <omprem@y...> wrote:
> > Omprem- what is your point in being here? What do
> you hope
> to gain?
> > What do you hope us to gain
> > > 2. Contraception is instrinsically evil. As is
> > > overpopulation and the resulting environmental
> > > Which do you think is the worst sin? Which one
> > > most people? The 'rythm method' is an attempt at
> > > why isn't it evil?
> > The rythym method is no longer promoted or
> Natural Family
> > Planning, which the church does recommend for
> couples with
> a serious
> > need to avoid pregnancy, is not the same thing.
> It works on a
> > principle (that of determining a woman's period of
> fertility) but it
> > is much more effective.
> > The thing you may be missing is that the Catholic
> Church does
> > teach that it is wrong to avoid or delay
> pregnancy. "Birth
> > that is, controling when children are conceived,
> is not what is at
> > stake here. What is at stake is _how_ the couple
> family size.
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.