Evidence for God from Science

I'll just briefly summarize my family and their thoughts on things.

Dad: Agnostic
Step-Mom: Catholic
Step-Grandma: Catholic
Step-Sister: Catholic

This is a very brief summary of the faith (and lack of) held by the members of the family who I live with. Religious discussion is impossible and something I avoid at all costs. It's like holding a stick which is lit with fire on both ends. I now have a situation to share with you all which occurred only a few minutes ago. It may sound slightly arrogant on my part but please don't think so.

I had asked my step-mom whether she knew the Epistle of James. A confused look spread across her face. "Is... it in the Bible?" she asked. I looked at her with disbelief. I was shocked for many great reasons. She has previously confessed that she belonged to the only true religion: Catholicism. Such strong words said by someone who doesn't even recognize the Epistle of James?

I had originally planned to talk to her about the greatness of that specific book; and how being that James was Jesus' half-brother it's very well possible that some of the poetic teachings within that book were Jesus' own . As soon as I said the word brother I had opened up a world of misery. I didn't understand at all. It's been clear to me from reading the Gospels and the general letters of the New Testament that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters.


And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25)

Joseph did not have sexual relations with the virgin Mary until she gave birth to her firstborn son, Jesus. This is quite clear and I can hardly understand how one could interpret this otherwise.

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28)

Mary was a woman highly favored by God. Like Elisabeth and Zacharias she would've led a good life under the love of God and the commandments. From this we can assume that after Jesus' birth, she and Joseph did not merely have sexual relations, but conceive other children. This is more subjective that the first evidence I've provided but I still find it strong. Wasn't it Jewish custom to have more than one (at least) children in a family?

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Matthew 13:55-56)

Here we have the public questioning Jesus. They wondered whether He was the son of Joseph and whether he was the brother of all of those names listed. Sisters were mentioned. We have at least six other children to wonder about when admiring the true family of Jesus (in a biological sense) in our studies.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. (Matthew 1:19)

Matthew does not record the angel's visitation to Mary. It records Joseph discovering his wife's pregnancy, and being a kind man stayed with her even though he would've been suspicious (who wouldn't be?!?). While he was thinking about the whole thing an angel then appeared to him and told him the situation. All is well.

Can we not assume from these few passages, and our knowledge of man's human nature, that the married couple would've come together again sexually after Jesus' birth? It would seem ridiculous in my eyes if they would not. What was the method of birth control back then? Pulling out I assume. As I stated before, it seems that Mary was far too noble to do anything which would displease God so from that we can assume the married couple made love and conceived other children, as is subtly written within the Gospels.

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (Acts 1:14)

The disciples of Jesus were there along side with Mary and Jesus' brethren. How do we understand that word not in a modern context but for Jesus' time? Brethren can either mean a member or a brother (half, full, etc) so which is it that we should assume for these verses?

As far as I have studied, the possibility of Jesus having brothers and sisters is very strong. I do not understand why catholicism claims that Mary remained a virgin. This contradicts traditional times, the Bible itself, and contradicts the act of professing love within a marriage through making love together. This does not lessen Jesus' divinity nor defile Mary as the mother of such a person. I do not understand why this is such a hostile issue...

I am not at all familiar with the Catholic Bible. Why is it that the one I read has 66 books and the Catholic version has more? Which is the true word and which is not? Does anyone else find it stunning that the evidence within the Bible is refuted by catholics in regards to brothers and sisters of Jesus?

My step-mom offered me a very snide remark after I had pointed some of these things out to her. She said, "Oh yeah, and which Bible did you get that from?" And I simply walked away knowing that I am probably more familiar with the actual writings than she is since she didn't even know of the Epistle of James (one of the greatest in the NT and the one I most cherish in reading).

I'm sorry that this thread is very long. I greatly appreciate every one's help with my questions. I am despairingly trying to find someone who I can share my new found thoughts with since my own family is divided on the issue.

Atticus, from my understanding the Catholic bible is exactly the same as our bible except for the additional books of the Apocrypha. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm

As far as I have studied, the possibility of Jesus having brothers and sisters is very strong. I do not understand why catholicism claims that Mary remained a virgin. This contradicts traditional times, the Bible itself, and contradicts the act of professing love within a marriage through making love together. This does not lessen Jesus' divinity nor defile Mary as the mother of such a person. I do not understand why this is such a hostile issue...

Yes, this is what we Protestants believe (that Jesus had real brothers)... Catholics believe differently about this..

Here is another one for you... Jesus's family directly descended from the prostitute Rahab, the great-great-great-great grandmother of King David (Matthew 1: 1-17). Also see Joshua 2:1...

Joshua 2:1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.

G -

FFC wrote:Atticus, from my understanding the Catholic bible is exactly the same as our bible except for the additional books of the Apocrypha. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm

That's correct. But from reading your post Atticus, I sense there's more to it than just a disagreement with the Marian doctrine between you and your family (please forgive me for the assumption if out of place).

Let me ask you this, do you consider yourself Catholic? If yes, then if you wish, we can delve a little deeper into Mary (and the saints) and other issues such as the the eucharist , purgatory and whatever else you might have questions or doubts about.

But if you do not consider yourself Catholic, I would advise not to get into such things as what exactly would be the point? You're not going to be able to change anyone's mind and it will only serve to confuse you even more in the process. If you're still in search mode as to where you belong (as far as organized religion), may I suggest a bible-based (as if there's any other kind) non-denominational church (even if you're being pressured in a different direction with which you're uncomfortable). Start with the basics, by reading and understanding the bible and what Christ and his gospel mean to you and to us all. Keep him as the focal point in your search and in your life; you will never be steered the wrong way.

Once again, please forgive me if I assumed too much (as we all know what happens when one assumes).

If there's anything I or other members or mods can help you with, please PM us and we'll do our best to respond ASAP.

In Christ,

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:
Let me ask you this, do you consider yourself Catholic?

No.

From what I've gathered (this might be false assumptions) the Catholic interpretation of certain vague passages in the Bible lead to traditions which were simply started by the Church and not an actual instruction of Jesus' at all.

I once attended a catholic church service with my family. They had reeds and were playing hockey with them or something. I had no clue what the purpose was. I don't even think they read from the Bible in the entire service -- there were just prayer recitals which I could not find within my Bible and seemed somewhat superfluous.

The problem with my family is that of the arrogance of a new believer and the tired beliefs of an elder who hasn't really studied as they should've have. I'll admit that I do seem arrogant when discussing it with them. I cannot help it. They aren't aware of what the Bible even says --- they simply follow along with what they have done in church (a dangerous way to live is to blindly follow the example of another without thinking) and leave it at that.

They pray to saints when they misplace their car keys. Do I need to say more?

I feel that they are possibly abusing the true faith of catholicism and forgive me if my assumptions have no base in reality. I feel that their religion is in vain when they do things like praying to find keys and such.

Atticus Finch wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you consider yourself Catholic?

No.

From what I've gathered (this might be false assumptions) the Catholic interpretation of certain vague passages in the Bible lead to traditions which were simply started by the Church and not an actual instruction of Jesus' at all.

Again, we can discuss these points one by one if you like but to throw a blanket statement like that is counterproductive. My point was that if you're not interested in catholicism, are you then searching to learn more about it or are you looking to refute it? Which one of these will better serve your immediate purposes? Let me know and based on that we can go further.

Atticus Finch wrote:I once attended a catholic church service with my family. They had reeds and were playing hockey with them or something. I had no clue what the purpose was. I don't even think they read from the Bible in the entire service -- there were just prayer recitals which I could not find within my Bible and seemed somewhat superfluous.

I'm not entirely certain what kind of catholic church or mass you attended but I can assure you none of them I attended (in the last 44 years) had any hockey games (except in the adjoining gym after mass) and ALL OF THEM had readings from the bible, whether it be reading from Paul, John, James or even the old testament, depending on the specific mass being celebrated.

Atticus Finch wrote:The problem with my family is that of the arrogance of a new believer and the tired beliefs of an elder who hasn't really studied as they should've have. I'll admit that I do seem arrogant when discussing it with them. I cannot help it. They aren't aware of what the Bible even says --- they simply follow along with what they have done in church (a dangerous way to live is to blindly follow the example of another without thinking) and leave it at that.

And there lies the problem Atticus. There are basically 3 types of catholics (this actually applies to any denomination or even religion).

1. The mass believers: Those are the ordinary people who go to mass (or service or whatever), listen, follow, and go back home. They tend to believe superficially and are not concerned with the details. They tend to have un uncomplicated, almost child-like faith. Are they saved? The ultimate decision is Christ's but It's quite possible, isn't it? I presume that's the category your family fall under.

2. The few who grow up in an environment full of people from number 1, who question everything they believe (and rightfully so) but don't get the answers they're looking for, so they turn away from what they believe and seek answers elsewhere (that's probably where you and most people who convert from catholicism fall).

3. Same as 2 but instead of turning away, they attempt to learn more about what the true religion is all about and seek answers within that religion in an effort to reconcile it with other similar (or not so similar) denominations, at least at the fundamental level. People who fall into that category are, well ..... me. (there might be others but I haven't found them yet ).

Atticus Finch wrote:They pray to saints when they misplace their car keys. Do I need to say more?

I feel that they are possibly abusing the true faith of catholicism and forgive me if my assumptions have no base in reality. I feel that their religion is in vain when they do things like praying to find keys and such.

I'm not sure they're abusing the true faith as much as it is that they do not fully understand it, as you. Praying to Mary and the saints is without a doubt the most misunderstood catholic practice. There are non-catholics who even view it as a satanic ritual, an attempt to communicate with the dead (i.e. necromancy). Nothing could be further from the truth. The belief is that there are certain very pius individuals (Mary and the saints) whom we believe are already in heaven. Now that in and of itself is a debatable point but for the sake of the argument, let's assume it's true and Mary is actually in heaven. Before I continue, let me ask you this: would you, at times of need, ask your mother, sister, brother, other christian friends to pray for you? We do all the time, even here on this site. Check the 'prayer' forum on the bottom of the discussion page. Having said that, praying 'to' Mary is exactly the same way. We DO NOT pray to Mary in the same way we pray to God. Praying to God is an act of worship. Praying to Mary (or more accurately, with Mary) is an intercessory prayer (in other words, we're asking her to pray for us, we're not worshiping her in any way, shape, or form). Vastly different prayer types wouldn't you say?

Atticus, please don't bog yourself down with negative thoughts and attitudes about catholicism if you're not interested in giving it a shot. If you were, I'd be more than happy to go with you, step by step, however long it takes. But if you're not, take my advice and channel your energy into more constructive things.

In Christ,

John.

Watch out Atticus, Byblos is out to get you...

(Just kidding John..)

G -

Atticus Finch wrote: Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. (Matthew 1:19)

Matthew does not record the angel's visitation to Mary. It records Joseph discovering his wife's pregnancy, and being a kind man stayed with her even though he would've been suspicious (who wouldn't be?!?). While he was thinking about the whole thing an angel then appeared to him and told him the situation. All is well.

I've been told that Joseph was planning to leave Mary ('put her away privily') to protect Mary from shame and take it on himself (people would assume they would've had premarital sex). He was indeed a kind man...and he must have loved Mary.

Turgonian wrote:
I've been told that Joseph was planning to leave Mary ('put her away privily') to protect Mary from shame and take it on himself (people would assume they would've had premarital sex). He was indeed a kind man...and he must have loved Mary.

Did you see that show kind of recently on TV about Jesus' family? It was mostly wild assumption but they raised some interesting (and some blasphemous) points. They theorized that Jesus was the result of Mary sleeping with a man whose name was not Joseph or becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

I honestly could not figure out where they brought their assumptions from. They had psychiatrists on the show determining how Jesus would've thought about being a child out of wedlock! Like I said, pretty blasphemous.

Atticus Finch wrote:
.......

I had originally planned to talk to her about the greatness of that specific book; and how being that James was Jesus' half-brother it's very well possible that some of the poetic teachings within that book were Jesus' own . As soon as I said the word brother I had opened up a world of misery. I didn't understand at all. It's been clear to me from reading the Gospels and the general letters of the New Testament that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters.


And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25)

Joseph did not have sexual relations with the virgin Mary until she gave birth to her firstborn son, Jesus. This is quite clear and I can hardly understand how one could interpret this otherwise.

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28)

Mary was a woman highly favored by God. Like Elisabeth and Zacharias she would've led a good life under the love of God and the commandments. From this we can assume that after Jesus' birth, she and Joseph did not merely have sexual relations, but conceive other children. This is more subjective that the first evidence I've provided but I still find it strong. Wasn't it Jewish custom to have more than one (at least) children in a family?

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Matthew 13:55-56)

Here we have the public questioning Jesus. They wondered whether He was the son of Joseph and whether he was the brother of all of those names listed. Sisters were mentioned. We have at least six other children to wonder about when admiring the true family of Jesus (in a biological sense) in our studies.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. (Matthew 1:19)

Matthew does not record the angel's visitation to Mary. It records Joseph discovering his wife's pregnancy, and being a kind man stayed with her even though he would've been suspicious (who wouldn't be?!?). While he was thinking about the whole thing an angel then appeared to him and told him the situation. All is well.

Can we not assume from these few passages, and our knowledge of man's human nature, that the married couple would've come together again sexually after Jesus' birth? It would seem ridiculous in my eyes if they would not. What was the method of birth control back then? Pulling out I assume. As I stated before, it seems that Mary was far too noble to do anything which would displease God so from that we can assume the married couple made love and conceived other children, as is subtly written within the Gospels.

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (Acts 1:14)

The disciples of Jesus were there along side with Mary and Jesus' brethren. How do we understand that word not in a modern context but for Jesus' time? Brethren can either mean a member or a brother (half, full, etc) so which is it that we should assume for these verses?

As far as I have studied, the possibility of Jesus having brothers and sisters is very strong. I do not understand why catholicism claims that Mary remained a virgin. This contradicts traditional times, the Bible itself, and contradicts the act of professing love within a marriage through making love together. This does not lessen Jesus' divinity nor defile Mary as the mother of such a person. I do not understand why this is such a hostile issue...

I am not at all familiar with the Catholic Bible. Why is it that the one I read has 66 books and the Catholic version has more? Which is the true word and which is not? Does anyone else find it stunning that the evidence within the Bible is refuted by catholics in regards to brothers and sisters of Jesus?

My step-mom offered me a very snide remark after I had pointed some of these things out to her. She said, "Oh yeah, and which Bible did you get that from?" And I simply walked away knowing that I am probably more familiar with the actual writings than she is since she didn't even know of the Epistle of James (one of the greatest in the NT and the one I most cherish in reading).

I'm sorry that this thread is very long. I greatly appreciate every one's help with my questions. I am despairingly trying to find someone who I can share my new found thoughts with since my own family is divided on the issue.

I am wondering what standpoints the Vatican office is holding? Given that the evidence you find about Jesus's family is so obvious, shouldn't we wonder how Vatican office holds the view officially Mary always remained a virgin?

Is there any official website from Vatican about the issue? Or probably it is simply your step-mom too ignorant about the scripture, is it?

Atticus Finch wrote:Did you see that show kind of recently on TV about Jesus' family? It was mostly wild assumption but they raised some interesting (and some blasphemous) points. They theorized that Jesus was the result of Mary sleeping with a man whose name was not Joseph or becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

I honestly could not figure out where they brought their assumptions from. They had psychiatrists on the show determining how Jesus would've thought about being a child out of wedlock! Like I said, pretty blasphemous.

Tsk...anachronizers. 21st-century psychiatrists talking about a 1st-century Jew, indeed...

Byblos wrote:But if you do not consider yourself Catholic, I would advise not to get into such things as what exactly would be the point? You're not going to be able to change anyone's mind and it will only serve to confuse you even more in the process.

I think Atticus's question was, 'How do I talk about religion with my family?' The Catholic part might be saved or not, I will not pronounce judgement on what I know nothing about; but Atticus said his dad was an agnostic, and I assume he strongly desires his father to come to Jesus too.
And besides all that, it may lead to new insights discussing religion with your family, and it may cause alienation if you can't talk about things that are so important to you.
As I understood it, Atticus wasn't launching a diatribe against a Catholic position, but was asking for advice about 'Discussing Religion with Family'.

Turgonian wrote:

Byblos wrote:But if you do not consider yourself Catholic, I would advise not to get into such things as what exactly would be the point? You're not going to be able to change anyone's mind and it will only serve to confuse you even more in the process.

I think Atticus's question was, 'How do I talk about religion with my family?' The Catholic part might be saved or not, I will not pronounce judgement on what I know nothing about; but Atticus said his dad was an agnostic, and I assume he strongly desires his father to come to Jesus too.
And besides all that, it may lead to new insights discussing religion with your family, and it may cause alienation if you can't talk about things that are so important to you.
As I understood it, Atticus wasn't launching a diatribe against a Catholic position, but was asking for advice about 'Discussing Religion with Family'.

Did I really sound like that's how I took it (i.e. a diatribe against a catholic position)? If I did I will apologize again (intentional or otherwise) but I assure you (and Atticus in particular) that's not what I had in mind.

My sole concern was that it seemed Atticus was walking away from christianity altogether and considering Islam as the true religion. It is not and I hope he is not.