Posts

Total: 29
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
I have a few topic ideas I'd like to explore in a new debate and would love to hear your thoughts, as you'll likely be the ones reading it. I wouldn't want people to read a boring debate, so feel free to share your thoughts. Please feel free to comment below if you'd like to participate in any of these topics or if you have any suggestions for new ones.

I'll list the topics in order from "most common/least interesting" to "least common/most interesting," based on how familiar I think people might be with them. By "most common," I mean topics that are often debated and may feel overdone, like an overplayed song. I'd prefer to avoid familiar topics if everyone already knows them well.

TOPICS.

  1. Are the dual natures of Jesus contradictory or self-refuting?
  2. Do the Marian Dogmas have theological basis?
  3. Does Purgatory have theological basis?
  4. Is the Trinity logical?
  5. Do any of the Seven Sacraments have theological basis?
    • For the purpose of the debate, we would be selecting one Sacrament
  6. Is the Bible a reliable source?
  7. Is the Trinity in the Bible?
  8. Does the Bible claim Jesus is God?

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,236
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Are the dual natures of Jesus contradictory or self-refuting?
Too ill defined to evaluate.


Is the Trinity logical?
No


Is the Bible a reliable source?
No


Is the Trinity in the Bible?
Contradictions in the bible can be resolved by the trinity, but the trinity is a contradiction, so that doesn't mean much.


Does the Bible claim Jesus is God?
Why would divinely inspired truth in text-form beat around the bush?
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
To clarify, I wasn’t seeking responses to the debate questions themselves. The topics I shared are debate subjects I’m considering for future events. I’m looking for opinions on whether people find these topics interesting and suitable for debate — not answers to the questions.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,636
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@CatholicApologetics
No they are not interesting.  It's something only  debated by theologians within catholic and orthodox circles . If you really want to make a difference your entire focus should be on polemics with Muslims. 
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@WyIted
That's an interesting take. Would you say there are a lot of Muslim debaters on this website? I don't check the debate feed often, but when I do I can't say I recollect much Muslim content. 
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,258
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
"Theological basis" is a bit vague -- maybe ask if they have a biblical basis?
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,636
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I'd say we have an ethical obligation to drag them here and destroy their stupid religious views so they can stop out converting us. 

Hey as a catholic though, I have some questions since I was considering catholicism. 

1. Why is the pope saying their are many ways to heaven not just Jesus?

2. With lucifer being k own as the light bringer, why did the catholic church just bring this Luce character which translates to light. 

These two things are looking like red flags to me and I am considering orthodoxy
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@WyIted
Thank you for the feedback! Regarding your first question, I haven’t delved deeply into the Pope scandal myself, but I recommend watching this video for more information. As for your second question, I’m not entirely sure I understand. Could you please clarify?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
  1. Is the Bible a reliable source?
No, it (New Testament in particular) isn't reliable as any type of source concerning the life and times of Christ nor 1st century Palestine/ Judaea.
Even with the obvious contradictions put aside, it is also full of ambiguous half stories  that lead to Cul-De Sacs from which spring myriads of unanswered questions which the Christian apologist will ignore, deny, swerve, obfuscate and simply lie about.

The Old Testament is probably more reliable as a history but is only concerned with the welfare and  prosperity of  only one tribe,  although  rather patchy when compared to the more detailed account handed down to us  as told  by historians such as Pharisee Priest and General Josephus whom, as I believe fills in many gaps that the bible  simply ignores. For example Josephus tells us that  Adam was taught in all  things relating to "that mysterious science of astronomy". One has to wonder why this brand new man would need to be taught about anything at all that exists miles above his head when there must have been more pressing things to need to know about here on Earth. 
Still. all good interesting stuff  if you were to ask me.

WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,636
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Maybe this can give context to the second question

https://news.sky.com/story/vatican-unveils-new-cartoon-mascot-for-catholic-church-13244550
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
Mary must have been the most ignorant negligent mother to have ever walked the Earth given the circumstances surrounding her conception and the birth of gods "ONLY" son.

It was a whole day before she realised that her heavenly charge- son of a god no less!-  was missing. And another three to find the little lingerer.
And what is as puzzling is  as to why it was that they were "astonished" by how he spoke and answered questions!  Why was they!?
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
@ADreamOfLiberty
To those that wanted to answer the questions, I can see that you have opinions on the topics. Would either of you be willing to engage in a debate?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I am more than happy to discuss with you here on the open forum. 
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@WyIted
In Latin, "Lucifer" translates to "light-bearer" or "morning star," and in early Christian contexts, it sometimes even referred to Christ in his role as the "light of the world." The Church often uses the word lux (Latin for "light") to symbolize divine wisdom, purity, and truth, especially in association with God or Christ as the "light of the world." Consequently, luce is Italian for "light." The title of "light" is not unique to Lucifer, as Jesus is also known as the "light of the world." The reference to "Luce" may symbolically represent Christ or saints who "bring light" to guide humanity. Although I haven't researched it thoroughly, there are clearly various reasons for the Catholic choice to name "Luce" as "light." I personally don't see this as a red flag.

Hopefully this context cleared some speculation.

CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
At the moment, I'm looking into debating. I've noticed you have a considerable amount of posts but no debates. I'm quite curious why you don't participate in debates. Is there a specific reason?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,236
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
If you mean the things under the "deabate" tab, then no. The truth is not served by constraining the dialogue to two people nor the votes pretending to decide a winner.

If you actually care about the true answers to your questions you would be far more interested in the best answer rather than the answers given by only one person in a limited time. i.e. ask the questions in the forums. Of course there is hardly anyone on this site or any other debate site so you might have to be patient or widen the net to be fairly sure you've gotten the best answers that humanity has to give.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
 I'm quite curious why you don't participate in debates. Is there a specific reason?

I simply prefer to discuss my theories, opinions and beliefs concerning the scriptures on this open forum where they can be challenged by all comers including Chaplains, Pastors and Priests and  to be able to ask questions of my own and hopefully receive good, reliable coherent  answers and or replies.

I've noticed you have a considerable amount of posts 

 Indeed. I believe its about 200 threads I have created on the scriptures/Christianity alone. Some went well and some didn't. 

Can you not think of anything yourself concerning the bible that you may want to discuss or worth asking about and questioning?

I also have noticed that only two  of the four threads that you have created are simply asking for" ideas or topics" of what to debate concerning the bible. I gave you one above HERE>> #11 Do I have a good point? Am I wrong? Does my comment make sense? Is it a reasonable question?  Is it a silly observation? And , do you have a reply?



CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen

I simply prefer to discuss my theories, opinions and beliefs concerning the scriptures on this open forum where they can be challenged by all comers including Chaplains, Pastors and Priests and  to be able to ask questions of my own and hopefully receive good, reliable coherent  answers and or replies.
I respect that. It seems like you're more committed to truth-finding rather than potential numerical gratification.



Can you not think of anything yourself concerning the bible that you may want to discuss or worth asking about and questioning?
I have many questions regarding the faith. I definitely do not know everything regarding the Bible. However, I have my own social circle with whom I ask questions and dialogue with. Most questions I research directly myself; a good example of this would be when claims arise during debates, or when I'm directly posed a question in private messages or on forums. This is a big part of why I like to debate — it forces me to improve my theological aptitude. In debating, I research complicated topics I might not have explored otherwise.


Mary must have been the most ignorant negligent mother to have ever walked the Earth given the circumstances surrounding her conception and the birth of gods "ONLY" son.

It was a whole day before she realised that her heavenly charge- son of a god no less!-  was missing. And another three to find the little lingerer.
And what is as puzzling is  as to why it was that they were "astonished" by how he spoke and answered questions!  Why was they!?
You're referencing Luke 2:41-52 here. I wouldn’t label Mary or Joseph as "ignorant" or "negligent" without a deeper understanding of the context, especially given the customs of their time. In those days, traveling to Jerusalem for Passover meant moving in large family caravans, where it was common for children to be with extended family or friends. Mary and Joseph likely assumed, quite reasonably, that Jesus was safe within the group (Luke 2:44). Once they realized He wasn’t, they immediately went back to search for him (Luke 2:45). Could they have checked more carefully? Perhaps, but it's important to consider that we don’t know all the circumstances. They may have been under stress, overworked, or even reassured by someone that Jesus was with the group. I'm not excusing their oversight, I'm simply offering a compassionate perspective. Without knowing these details, I don't think it’s fair to judge their actions as negligent. If anything, I think this passage showcases that the parents of Jesus were not perfect, but had shortcomings like you and I.

As for their astonishment upon finding Jesus teaching in the Temple, I think this points not to ignorance, but rather to the depth of Jesus’ divine nature, which was challenging for any human to fully grasp. Mary, despite knowing she bore the Son of God, was still a human mother, processing the mystery of His nature gradually. Witnessing Jesus engage in profound discourse with religious scholars was beyond any previous expectations she might have had. It’s similar to being told someone can perform miracles, and then witnessing it firsthand — no matter the foreknowledge, the reality can still astonish.

Excuse the rather long comment!

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Most questions I research directly myself; [..................................................] I research complicated topics I might not have explored otherwise.
And so you should. Can I suggest you read and research the bible?



Mary must have been the most ignorant negligent mother to have ever walked the Earth given the circumstances surrounding her conception and the birth of gods "ONLY" son.

It was a whole day before she realised that her heavenly charge- son of a god no less!-  was missing. And another three to find the little lingerer.
And what is as puzzling is  as to why it was that they were "astonished" by how he spoke and answered questions!  Why was they!?
I wouldn’t label Mary or Joseph as "ignorant" or "negligent" without a deeper understanding of the context, .it's important to consider that we don’t know all the circumstances.
Indeed we do not know "all" the details nor circumstances. But the bible makes it clear that it was "a whole day" before they noticed he was missing. But go back just one verse and we read: 

 "After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it". 

The first thing any parent  does when leaving a party, a day out at the park or Zoo or a festival, is gather up their children.  What they don't do is leave without shouting for their kids to gather as so leave as a family unit. Even if we say Mary had only two other children at the time, wouldn't it be reasonable for any one of those four to ask, where is Jesus? And Before a whole day had passed?

They may have been under stress, overworked, or even reassured by someone that Jesus was with the group.
Conjecture. And a curtesy that the Christian apologist will never afford his opponent.


I'm not excusing their oversight, I'm simply offering a compassionate perspective.

What you are doing is scraping the barrel for a highly unlikely reason why it was even possible to mislay a child, and a holy gift from god himself. 


Without knowing these details, I don't think it’s fair to judge their actions as negligent. If anything, I think this passage showcases that the parents of Jesus were not perfect, but had shortcomings like you and I.

But the child was perfect wasn't he?  He was holy, immaculately conceived, special and a child that was to be a king that by the promise of his father god himself would inherit the throne of king David ? Which among other promises made to his mother by god never came to fruition. And Mary wasn't at all like you or I, was she? She was chosen by god himself to bare his child. Sound pretty special to me. It's a shame that god didn't tell his mother the whole story of her son's cruel torturous demise instead of  the one he actually did give he. ie that he was only here on earth as a sacrifice!

As for their astonishment upon finding Jesus teaching in the Temple, I think this points not to ignorance, but rather to the depth of Jesus’ divine nature,

This doesn't answer they question as to why they were "astonished", does it?  Had  they forgotten that this child  was "divine"?
div·ine
[dɪˈvʌɪn]
adjective
  1. of or like God or a god:
Are you telling us that neither of his parents had never held a conversation of their own with their "divine" child? Are you telling us that the child himself never once before their visit to Jerusalem had discussed or explained anything  about his origins or indeed  his very  existence?  Didn't the very fact of her immaculate conception giver her the slightest clue as to what she was to expect from her holy charge from god?  You see, for every answer you give  it simply doesn't stand when compared to what we do know from the scriptures.


which was challenging for any human to fully grasp. Mary, despite knowing she bore the Son of God, was still a human mother,
processing the mystery of His nature gradually. Witnessing Jesus engage in profound discourse with religious scholars was beyond any previous expectations she might have had.

Opinion.  And  your opinions simply do not add up concerning the BIBLICAL fact that  his mother knew exactly where her chid had come from, what her child was,  and would ( or was supposed) to become.


It’s similar to being told someone can perform miracles, and then witnessing it firsthand — no matter the foreknowledge, the reality can still astonish.

No it isn't. And Jesus wasn't just "someone" was he. He was a god  if Christians are to be believed.

I am of the opinion that the whole story was simply shoehorned in by the author in a poor attempt at giving Jesus some early background and show his so called "divinity".
As are your poor attempts at explaining away this whole biblical episode.



CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
Indeed we do not know "all" the details nor circumstances. But the bible makes it clear that it was "a whole day" before they noticed he was missing.
Firstly, we need to consider the cultural norms of the period. In ancient Jewish society, communal responsibility played a significant role in child-rearing, especially during events like the Passover pilgrimage. It was typical for large family groups to travel together, and it would not have been unusual for parents to assume their children were safe with relatives or neighbors. To apply modern standards to this context misrepresents the reality of their world.

Next, the passage in Luke 2:43-44, which states, "After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it," suggests not neglect but a reflection of this cultural trust. It wasn’t until they could not find Him after a day’s journey that concern set in, sparking their immediate return to Jerusalem. It is not conjecture but reasonable context to consider that, like any parents, they could have been reassured by assumptions or common practices.


This doesn't answer they question as to why they were "astonished", does it?  Had  they forgotten that this child  was "divine"?
Regarding their astonishment at finding Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:46-47), this was less about ignorance and more about the surprising display of His knowledge at such a young age. While Mary was aware of her child's divine nature, experiencing this in a new, tangible way — Jesus discussing profound theological matters with esteemed scholars — underscores the complexity of fully comprehending His mission. Just as humans can be told of extraordinary capacities yet remain awestruck when witnessed, this reaction was consistent with her human nature, even as the mother of the Messiah. The claim that Mary was distinct and chosen does not negate her humanity.


He (Jesus) was holy, immaculately conceived, special and a child that was to be a king that by the promise of his father god himself would inherit the throne of king David ? Which among other promises made to his mother by god never came to fruition.
According to scripture, this promise is rooted in the covenant God made with David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, where God promises that David’s lineage will endure forever and that his throne will be established eternally. This is interpreted in Christian theology as pointing to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus’ role as King is manifested not through a conventional earthly kingdom but through His spiritual reign over believers. The New Testament emphasizes that His kingdom is "not of this world" (John 18:36), indicating that His reign transcends earthly politics and focuses on a divine, eternal rule. In this interpretation, Jesus does fulfill the promise to inherit David's throne by establishing a new covenant that surpasses a temporal dynasty and extends into an everlasting spiritual realm.

Regardless, most of the questions you've raised aren't really important with regards to the overarching atonement narrative. As always, it's important to explore questions like these, but I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. Let me know if I forgot to address any of your other questions or objections.

JW0730
JW0730's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1
0
0
0
JW0730's avatar
JW0730
0
0
0
-->
@CatholicApologetics
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,125
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@JW0730
People teach.

The Bible is an inert bundle of ex-trees.

And if we actually knew what was what, there would be no need for a religious forum.

And a trinity is a group of three.

Like three bananas.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,229
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I reckon
Thats, reckon. 
I reckon If you tired a string around a door or a like a tree and gave it a yank when ya " putting forth " a ummmm, like a question, back in thoes days, you could easily fool folks into doing stuff. 
IT SEEMS. 

Thats, 
IT SEEMS. 

Thus bringing us to ... DEBATE TOPICS.
Half wits. 
The percentage of half wits back then must of been fenom.
Funomin.
Fuck how do you spell it. 
( 5 seconds ) 
4
3
And a 2.
And a one. 
Ph.
it might start with ph hey. 
Phenomenon.
Phenomenal.  Thats it. 
Thank you T9 dictionary.  
So yeah. 

The percentage of half wits must of been phenomenal.   
A guess has me at,  83.2% half wits.  
IT SEEMS.
Thats. 
IT SEEMS. 

Ok.
Alright .   
78.8% HW.
But it couldn't of been any less. 


PS
Do not say.
A half wit  Would still know how to spell phenomenal. 
Just dont right. 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Regardless, most of the questions you've raised aren't really important .......


Ok. So what is the point and or purpose of the story anyway? What are we the reader expected to learn from it ?
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t misquote me. The full quote is: “Regardless, most of the questions you've raised aren’t really important with regards to the overarching atonement narrative.” I did not say it wasn’t important, period. I said it wasn’t important for the atonement narrative.

Will you address anything else from #20?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Luke 2:41-52 


What is the point and or purpose of the story ? What are we the reader expected to learn from it ?


CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
Luke’s story of Jesus in the temple at the age of 12 is the only incident in the gospels about the life of Jesus between infancy and the beginning of his ministry. Luke has several intentions for this passage in the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts that are suggestive for preaching. By noting that Mary and Joseph went every year to Jerusalem for the Passover, Luke 2:41-52 implies that Jesus grew up in a faithful Jewish household. The emphasis on Jesus in the temple and his interaction with the teachers of Israel plays a similar important role in the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Jesus was immersed in Judaism since his youth. He speaks as an insider with a thorough knowledge.

These facts are important because by the time Luke wrote (80-90 CE) tensions had developed between Luke’s congregation, whose distinguishing features were believing that the ministry of Jesus began the final and full manifestation of the realm of God and welcoming gentiles into the community without complete conversion to Judaism, and other Jewish groups that did not share that belief. As the ministry of Jesus unfolds, Jesus has considerable conflict with Jewish authorities over how to interpret God’s presence and purposes in the eschatological moment. The same thing is true of the church in Acts. By recollecting that Jesus was raised in a faithful Jewish atmosphere, and recalling that Jesus speaks as a Jewish insider, Luke assures listeners that the viewpoints of Jesus and the church are authentically Jewish. Jesus and the church do not reject Judaism. They interpret Jewish convictions in light of the eschatological turning of the ages.

It is easy to be appalled that Mary and Joseph lost track of Jesus. Luke, of course, is not pointing to bad parenting, but is setting the stage for Jesus to state clearly his own understanding that he has a special relationship with God. Jesus’ true Father is God (not Joseph), and Jesus is to be about God’s interests, i.e. must serve God’s purposes. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,634
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Will you address anything else from #20?

I had already addressed your speculation with my post at  #19 or was it  a sermon based on your speculation.?  Its a bit of a blurred line.  To address further your speculation at post 20 would be a pointless exercise  and just as pointless as it would be to address your  conjecture and speculation presented as fact above at post #27..... only to repeat:


As for their astonishment upon finding Jesus teaching in the Temple, I think this points not to ignorance, but rather to the depth of Jesus’ divine nature,

 The child was perfect wasn't he?  He was holy, immaculately conceived, special and a child that was to be a king that by the promise of his father god himself would inherit the throne of king David ? Which among other promises made to his mother by god never came to fruition. And Mary wasn't at all like you or I, was she? She was chosen by god himself to bare his child. Sound pretty special to me. It's a shame that god didn't tell his mother the whole story of her son's cruel torturous demise instead of  the one he actually did give he. ie that he was only here on earth as a sacrifice!

  Are you telling us that neither of his parents had never held a conversation of their own with their "divine" child? Are you telling us that the child himself never once before their visit to Jerusalem had discussed or explained anything  about his origins or indeed  his very  existence?  Didn't the very fact of her immaculate conception giver her the slightest clue as to what she was to expect from her holy charge from god?  You see, for every answer you give  it simply doesn't stand when compared to what we do know from the scriptures.

But both you and Luke will have us all believe the story was to show  whoever how knowledgeable and how close he was to his god and  the "depth" of his own divinity?  He was god wasn't he!? 

As I stated above, you are expecting  all reading here  to believe that in the 12 years Jesus had been on earth, and  after all the signs and warnings Mary and Joseph heard  from angels of god no less about this heavenly child and would be king ,  that nothing before his speaking  at the temple had  astonished them before that day. 




CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 73
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
I had already addressed your speculation with my post at  #19 or was it  a sermon based on your speculation.?  Its a bit of a blurred line.  To address further your speculation at post 20 would be a pointless exercise  and just as pointless as it would be to address your  conjecture and speculation presented as fact above at post #27
This dismissal of discussion as “speculation” overlooks the depth of Catholic exegesis. Engaging with these passages through the lens of Catholic theology isn’t conjecture but rather an exploration rooted in centuries of Church teaching. The narrative in Luke 2:41-52, like all Scripture, benefits from thorough analysis informed by tradition and Church Fathers. Catholic theology does not view such exegesis as a "pointless exercise" but as essential for deeper understanding.


The child was perfect wasn't he? He was holy, immaculately conceived, special and a child that was to be a king that by the promise of his father god himself would inherit the throne of king David? Which among other promises made to his mother by god never came to fruition.”
While it is true that Jesus was perfect and holy, being divine and sinless, the assertion that the promises “never came to fruition” misinterprets the nature of His kingship. Catholic teaching holds that Jesus did indeed inherit the throne of David, but not in the temporal sense that some expected. His kingdom is spiritual and universal, transcending the earthly notion of kingship. This fulfillment is affirmed in His declaration that His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36) and is foundational to Catholic understanding.


And Mary wasn't at all like you or I, was she? She was chosen by god himself to bear his child. Sound pretty special to me. It's a shame that god didn't tell his mother the whole story of her son's cruel torturous demise instead of the one he actually did give her, i.e., that he was only here on earth as a sacrifice!”
Mary’s uniqueness as the Mother of God (Theotokos) is undisputed in Catholic teaching. However, the argument that she should have known every detail of Jesus' future disregards the nature of divine revelation. Mary received what was necessary to fulfill her role, and while she was aware of Jesus’ divine mission (Luke 1:32-35), she, like any human, experienced the progressive unfolding of God’s plan. The prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:34-35) alludes to the sorrow she would face, indicating that while Mary knew of the Messiah’s role, the full extent of His suffering was not revealed to her in detail.


Are you telling us that neither of his parents had never held a conversation of their own with their ‘divine’ child? Are you telling us that the child himself never once before their visit to Jerusalem had discussed or explained anything about his origins or indeed his very existence?
This presumption overlooks the mystery of the hypostatic union — the belief that Jesus is fully God and fully human. While Jesus' divine nature was inherent, His human nature followed a natural development process (Luke 2:52). Catholic theology supports that He grew in wisdom in a way appropriate for His human experience. Conversations between Jesus and His parents may have occurred, but expecting them to have fully grasped or discussed all aspects of His divine nature undermines the gradual revelation inherent in the Gospels.


Didn’t the very fact of her immaculate conception give her the slightest clue as to what she was to expect from her holy charge from god?
The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s preservation from original sin, not her omniscience regarding Jesus’ entire future. Her sinless nature prepared her to be a worthy mother of Christ but did not imply she had complete foreknowledge of all events. The Gospels depict Mary as learning and deepening her understanding of Jesus’ mission over time, aligning with the Catholic teaching that her faith and acceptance were acts of trust in God’s plan.


As I stated above, you are expecting all reading here to believe that in the 12 years Jesus had been on earth, and after all the signs and warnings Mary and Joseph heard from angels of god no less about this heavenly child and would be king, that nothing before his speaking at the temple had astonished them before that day.
It is not that nothing astonished them before this event; it is that this event, specifically, was remarkable due to Jesus’ self-awareness and expression of His divine mission. Mary and Joseph witnessed signs and had angelic revelations, but their understanding of Jesus’ full identity and mission developed over time. This astonishment does not reflect ignorance but the profound realization that, even in their role as parents, they were witnessing the divine mystery of God’s plan unfolding through their son.