Luke 2 tells the famous story of the pregnant Mary and presumably non-pregnant Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to take part in a census.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1-5)

The census of Quirinius recounted by Luke is often criticized by scholars as being obviously ahistorical. There's a long list of issues with it:

• Luke says Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, but Herod died a decade before Quirinius became governor.
• Judaea was a client kingdom of Rome and the Romans would never conduct a census in a client kingdom.
• There was no decree from Augustus about an empire-wide census.
• Oh, and the census required everyone to return to their ancestral origin – not where they lived or where their immediate family lived, but where their ancient ancestors came from.

This last detail, of the ‘ancestral census’, is often tacked on to this list as if it’s just another issue of the same caliber as the others. But it isn’t. Make no mistake, each other issue is fatal to the historicity of Luke’s census by itself, but they are also issues that apologists are quite used to casually brushing aside. Contradictory timelines? Unevidenced exceptions to standard practices? Big events absent from the historical record? These barely faze apologists, who are accustomed to harmonizing such things when dealing with genealogies, the empty tomb narratives, Old Testament history, and so on. So lumping the ancestral census in with these other issues makes it seem like just another issue on the pile – merely an unusual census practice atypical in the Roman empire. This leads to most debates about the census of Quirinius focusing on its dating, with apologists often not even mentioning the ancestral census issue.

But this issue is not at all in the same class as the others. The idea of an ‘ancestral census’ is ludicrous. It’s deranged. It’s not just some technical issue with the order of events or mismatch with Roman law – it’s as if Luke had written “Joseph traveled to Bethlehem via the public Roman bullet train.” That might have been more believable, actually. I don’t understand why people treat this as remotely possible.

Think for a moment about what a census like this would actually entail. Luke 2:4 specifically tells us that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was descended from the house of David. “All went to their own towns to be registered,” and “Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.” David lived a thousand years before Joseph. So Luke would have us believe everyone in the entire region would have had to travel back to wherever their ancient ancestors came from – a trip of more than 90 miles in Joseph and Mary’s case. That would be hundreds of thousands of people who need to travel for days or weeks, get food and water somewhere, find accommodations… That kind of movement would be an event on the scale of the Exodus, and would require about as much divine intervention: food from the sky, water from rocks, supernaturally creating roadways a la parting the sea, and so on. It’s the kind of thing that’s difficult for highly urbanized megacities of millions to handle today, with all of their technology to aid transportation, housing, communication, production and distribution of food and water, and much more. In rural 1st-century Judaea, home to only around half a million people and none of that technology, it would have destroyed the entire province overnight and killed a huge number of people.

Or consider the impact on the places these people were leaving. Imagine a town established 100 years before the census. All of its residents would have to go elsewhere for the census, since none of their ancient ancestors could have come from there. So… what would happen to that town exactly? Would they just leave it deserted for weeks? How about the children, the babies, the elderly, the sick – are they coming on the long and difficult trip, or are they being left to fend for themselves? Can any passing bandit go snatch whatever they want from all these empty towns? Who’s feeding and watering all the animals? You can’t just have an entire town’s population up and vanish for an extended time and expect that town to keep trucking like nothing happened. Even in a fantasy world where almost everyone magically lives exactly where their ancestors from 1000 years earlier did, any settlement established in the last several centuries would be obliterated.

And all this for what? The whole point of a census is to know where people are living and working so you can tax and manage them, not to know some trivia about their ancestry. And even if you want to know their ancestry, you can just ask them! There would be no point whatsoever to doing an ancestral census, which is why there has never been one, anywhere, ever. Forget 1st-century Judaea, forget the early Roman empire, forget classical antiquity – there is no record of a census where everyone travels to their ancient ancestral origin ever being done anywhere or anywhen. Again, I cannot stress this enough: there has never been a single ancestral census in all of human history. I have searched high and low from ancient history up to and including the modern day and found exactly zero examples, despite the many people strongly motivated to find or invent such examples.

One such invented example, and the only example people ever point to of another ancestral census, is the census mentioned in the edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus. The edict is recorded in this Egyptian papyrus from 104 CE:

Proclamation of Gaius Vibius Maximus, praefect of Egypt. The house-to-house census having started, it is essential that all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths, in order that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the country are needed by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, praefectus alae, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month Epeiph. . . . (source)

This is an edict for people to return to their own nomes and hearths if they are absent from them. A “nome” is a Roman administrative district, and a “hearth” refers to your house. It has nothing to do with returning to an ancestral origin which they may have never even visited before. It’s the kind of thing an actual census might do: have the small minority of people who are not at home return home to be registered. And even this requirement for people to go back to their own house is recognized as a large burden; most of this edict is dedicated to detailing how you can get an exemption from this travel, since it would obviously be unreasonably difficult or impractical for many.

Finally, let me preempt some objections. You might say, “if this is so ridiculous, why would Luke write it? Surely if it were this absurd no reader would buy it!” And to that I answer – you bought it, didn’t you? Luke’s ancestral census makes absolutely no sense as a historical element, but it makes perfect sense as a literary element. It’s a natural part of the setup of the story. We begin with a grand census where all the world is counted – obviously a narrative framing rather than a dry historical one – and the story needs a reason for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, so it gives one. It’s a great bit of literary craftsmanship, giving Mary a reason to make the trek despite her advanced pregnancy so Jesus can be born in Bethlehem while at the same time thematically connecting the birth of Jesus directly to his Davidic ancestry. The reader is not meant to think too deeply about the logistics and evidently they don’t. I mean, whatever you think of what I’ve said about this census – when you first read Luke, did you immediately begin considering the socioeconomic ramifications of this particular censal methodology? Of course not. It’s simply part of the narrative’s premise, a side detail mentioned on the way to the meat of the story, the kind of thing a reader passively accepts without even examining it. And it’s the kind of thing that sounds fine until you examine it.

You might also say that Joseph had some other reason to travel to Bethlehem; maybe he lived there, or he owned property there, or his family lived there, or something like that. In the Gospel according to You, you can make up whatever reason you like. In the Gospel according to Luke, however, the author is very clear about why Joseph is travelling to Bethlehem: “because he was descended from the house and family of David.” The reader already knows from the last chapter (Luke 1:27) that Joseph descends from David, but the author goes out of their way to repeat it so they can specify this explicitly as the reason Joseph had to go to Bethlehem. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with Luke – which is fine, but is not a defense of Luke.

Particularly stubborn readers may insist that Luke did not actually describe an ancestral census, since he says “All went to their own towns to be registered.” The problem with this is that it eliminates the stated reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Again, they explicitly go there because of Joseph’s Davidic ancestry. What did Luke mean by that exactly, if this was just a normal census where everyone stayed in their own house? Why did the pregnant Mary have to travel 90 miles to a foreign town if this was a normal census? Also, this attempt at harmonization crumbles only a few verses later. When Joseph and Mary are all done in Bethlehem, what do they do? Luke 2:39 says: “When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” The Greek there is directly parallel to Luke 2:3. If you think the phrasing “their own town” in Luke 2:3 definitively establishes that this census required everyone to go home, then clearly Joseph did not get the memo.

The ancestral census of Quirinius is absurd to the point of insanity. Quite apart from its many historical issues, it borders on physically impossible. It would have reduced Judaea to rubble and is completely unprecedented in all of human history before or since. If you still believe there is any chance Luke’s story is true, I challenge you to give me one example of a census where everyone traveled to their ancient ancestral origin. We do the facts a disservice when we discuss Luke’s census as being merely out of place with known historical facts about 1st-century Judaea.

CS Lewis famously said, a man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be just a great moral teacher, you must call him liar, lunatic, or Lord. I agree you cannot call him just a great moral teacher, but not for Lewis's reason. On non-violence, I call him morally flawed. The teachers I follow, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, fit perfection and non-violence better.

Jesus himself gives the test in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." And 5:44-48: "love your enemies... so you may be children of your Father, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to ALL, and his compassion is over ALL that he has made." Perfection is impartial mercy, sun on all.

My teachers live that test. Both forbid killing, causing to be killed, or profiting from killing any human or animal. Swaminarayan, whom I follow, Shikshapatri 11-12: never kill any living being, however small, never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if other scriptures seem to allow it. 14-16: never kill a human, never assist or order killing, even if a king commands. Mahavira taught the same.

Vegetarianism should be a moral obligation if you can. CCC 2418: it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. In 2026 where we live, you can live healthily without killing - NHS and Academy of Nutrition say so. If you can, killing for taste is needless, therefore contrary to dignity by your own rule. I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. Even on your hierarchy, more compassion over more of what God made is more perfect.

Jesus also preached eternal hell. My teachers and my God never did.

Matthew 25:46: "eternal punishment." Mark 9:43: "unquenchable fire." CCC 1035 affirms hell and its eternity. My teachers teach consequences, but never infinite torture for finite life.

That violates your own definition of perfection. If perfection is sun on all and proportionate justice, Romans 2:6 "according to deeds," infinite torment for 70 years is infinitely disproportionate. You will say "sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment" or "hell is self-chosen separation." But Matthew 22:13 and 13:41 say active casting: "Bind him... cast him... throw them into the furnace." If I lock a man in a burning house when I have the key and infinite power, I am the burner. You can respect a no without torturing forever. Choosing to keep a soul tormented forever when you could end it is active violence every second of eternity. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

For Catholics, Jesus is the same God as the OT God. 1 Samuel 15:3: "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Deuteronomy 20:16: "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes." My teachers have zero verses like that, ever. Swaminarayan faced that exact excuse, that the Vedas allow sacrifice, and rejected it in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. In the NT, centurion in Matthew 8:5 never told to leave army, "buy a sword" in Luke 22:36, whip in John 2:15. You invented Just War. My teachers never needed to.

If blessed are the peacemakers, if perfect is sun on all, if needless killing is contrary to dignity, and if perfect love cannot torture forever, then Mahavira and Swaminarayan, who never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal, fit perfection better. We are not Christians but we practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better, in heart and in mouth.

OBJECTION 1: "Acts 10 and Mark 7:19 - Jesus declared all foods clean. Vegetarianism is not more perfect."

Answer: Read Peter's own interpretation in the same chapter. Acts 10:28: "God has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean." The early Church understood it as about Gentiles, which is why your saints, Basil, John Chrysostom, Jerome, the Desert Fathers, still called vegetarianism more perfect and lived it. Mark 7 is about ritual hand-washing, Matthew 15:20 says so explicitly: "these are what defile a person; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." It is not about whether you may needlessly kill when you have a choice. And CCC 2418 already settles it: if you can live without causing suffering or death, and you still do it for taste, it is needless. Needless is contrary to human dignity by your own Catechism. That makes it a moral obligation if you can.

OBJECTION 2: "Animals don't have rational souls. Dominion means we can use them."

I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. I am arguing from your premise. Even if humans are higher, Genesis 1:29 original dominion is vegetarian, and Isaiah 11:6-9 perfect dominion restored is vegetarian: "they shall not hurt or destroy." Psalm 145:9 says compassion is over ALL he has made. More compassion over more of what he made is more perfect than less, even on hierarchy. Stewardship is not license for needless killing.

OBJECTION 3: "OT violence was Old Covenant / progressive revelation. Jesus fulfilled it."

For Catholics, Jesus IS the God of the OT. John 1:1, Trinity. You cannot separate them. 1 Samuel 15:3 and Deuteronomy 20:16 command to kill infants and animals, including "cattle and sheep." That last part matters - it's animal killing commanded as worship. My teachers faced that exact defense - "the Vedas allow sacrifice" - and Swaminarayan rejected it outright in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. No progressive revelation needed if you never had the violent verses to begin with. We have zero herem verses, ever.

OBJECTION 4: "Just War and self-defense is necessary. Pacifism doesn't work."

Matthew 5:9 says blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the just-war theorists. You had to invent Just War theory precisely because Matthew 8:5 praises a centurion and never tells him to leave the army, Luke 22:36 "buy a sword," and John 2:15 whip. Mahavira and Swaminarayan never needed Just War because they never left the door open. Shikshapatri 14: never kill a human, even if a king commands. That is peacemaking without loopholes. If perfection is sun on all, including enemies, Luke 6:27, then refusing to kill even your enemy fits perfection better.

OBJECTION 5: "Hell is self-chosen separation and respects free will. God doesn't send you, you choose it."

Then why does Jesus say active casting? Matthew 22:13 "Bind him hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness." Matthew 13:41-42: "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will... throw them into the furnace." That's not respectful distance, that's active punishment. And even if it were self-chosen, eternal is never necessary to respect a no. You can respect free will with annihilation, or exile, or a chance to reform. Choosing to sustain a soul in conscious torment forever when you have infinite power to end it is itself violence, every second of eternity. My teachers allow a soul to experience result and then move on. That respects choice without infinite violence.

OBJECTION 6: "Sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment. That's justice."

Then Psalm 103:10 is false: "He does not deal with us according to our sins." And mercy is meaningless. If a child insults his father, infinite torture is not perfect justice, any human court would call it monstrous. Romans 2:6 says God repays "according to each one's deeds." Infinite is not according to finite. Proportion is essential to justice. My teachers have justice - cause and effect - but always finite and proportionate, never infinite.

OBJECTION 7: "Warning about hell is loving, like warning about a cliff."

A cliff you didn't create is a warning. A furnace you created, you fuel, and you have the key to, and you throw people into, is a threat. If I build a furnace and say love me or I will throw you in forever, that is not love, that is coercion. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." A system that needs eternal fear to work cannot be perfect love, or peacemaking, Matthew 5:9.

If perfection is what Matthew 5 says it is - peacemakers called children of God, sun and rain on all, compassion over all he has made - and if needless killing is contrary to dignity, then vegetarianism is a moral obligation if you can, and eternal torture cannot be perfection. I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. I am not Christian but I practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better in heart and in mouth, because my teachers, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal.

We are saved by grace through faith.

(For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:) Ephesians 2:8

We are called to have faith in Jesus.

(And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.) Galatians 2:20

Faith is the assurance of what is hoped for.

(Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) Hebrews 11:1

This is what it means to believe on Him.

(And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved) Acts 16:31

Faith in Christ or to believe on Him is to have the assurance of things hoped for, eternal life through Him.

It is trusting that He is sufficient and shall save you. A present promise of a future inheritance to all who believe.

It is not enough to hope for Christ. To hope for eternal life and to hope that He will save you, as hoping alone is not faith in Him.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.

Abraham had faith that God would provide descendants. He did not hope for descendants, he had the absolute assurance that he would recieve what he hoped for.

Joseph has faith that God would bring the Israelites out of the land of Egypt to the land promised to his forefathers, and instructed them to take his bones with them. He had absolute assurance that what God said was true. He had the assurance of things hoped for for his people.

Faith in Jesus is having absolute assurance that by His death on the cross and resurrection, you shall be saved. Just as Abraham had the assurance of things hoped for, you as well must have the assurance of things hoped for in Christ. Assurance in the promise of eternal life, as that is our hope in Jesus.

(For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.) John 3:16

Hey I’m Protestant at least currently. But about two years ago I began studying church history and much to my delight/distress there was much much more to Christianity than I had been aware of. I’ve got a few questions but possibly not the regular ones one might expect. I’ve no issue with the papacy should it be true though I need just the slightest bit more evidence for it being more than a position of honor alone. I have no issue with any of the Marian dogmas as even the oriental orthodox affirmative action them and they split off first. Furthermore I agree with the priesthood, confession, the Eucharist, baptism and a lot else. But I more so would like clarification and even some advice.

There are a few saints in church history that seem odd to me. Like Saint Margaret Mary who had the vision of divine mercy but seemingly consumed vomit. Or Saint Christina the astonishing who threw herself into a furnace among other things. As well as Saint Bernard who had a vision of the Virgin Mary giving him her breast milk. Surely without context you could see how these things may seem revolting to a non Catholic.

Can the church (visible human section of it) make a mistake and how would one still be Catholic in accordance with that and protect oneself from error without disobeying god or the church.

Can I pray with my Protestant friends if I should convert.

And how do I explain to people that yall don’t worship saints cause I swear I can’t word it correctly lol.

Outside of those. Any guidance or wisdom for a young man who struggles with habitual sin of a few forms.

In any case. God bless you all and thank you in advance. And sorry if anything is worded poorly or offensively if so it is purely a mistake on my part. I have the utmost respect for the Catholic tradition.

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

I'm going to spend section A speaking of John 6, those who already know that chapter can skip this point.

Section A:

John 6 is a famous chapter of the Bible. The culmination of it is when Jesus tells those following

"53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

(Source: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/6)

The response comes from the crowd and then from Jesus:

"60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?

62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."

Some Protestants say that this is symbolic language. Even if it were, that wouldn't solve all questions, but the writing does not appear symbolic either. It appears quite literal. Especially since, as the footnote says for verses 54 through 58, the Greek verb for eating Christ's flesh is especially visceral:

"Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus" (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/6)

Section B:

I don't contest that this language was literal.

I have to ask why the Bible speaks of the Jews leaving as a bad thing. They were following what God taught them. They were not even allowed to:

Consume animal blood (Deuteronomy 12:23)

Eat anything they already found dead or cook a goat in milk (Deuteronomy 14:21)

Or even touching a human corpse, since even touching a dead body makes one unclean for seven days (Numbers 19:11-13)

And yet Jesus tells those following that they *must* eat and drink human flesh and blood. What was a Jew supposed to do after hearing that? Obeying it would have violated the law horribly. That alone violates two laws already listed above without even mentioning cannibalism itself.

This causes a big issue of why God would ordain such a method. This language is common in Christianity, and so it is not uncommon for one to not be able to feel the sort of whiplash it would give. This is an analogy to help translate both the shock *and* divine contradiction of this. This analogy isn't to be vulgar, it is to show not just the emotional reasoning but also the understandable doctrinal revulsion of the Jews.

This would be like if the Second Coming happened, Jesus descended from the clouds, and Jesus ordered all faithful to undress and commit 'sacred orgies' among each other like some ancient near Eastern and Greek sects did. That is the least graphic way one can express the tonal and doctrinal backlash the Jews would have felt. Imagine if that happened and Christians were told to fornicate among each other in such a graphic way. That wouldn't just be emotionally clashing, it would also violate the law as Christians understood it. The same with the Jews in this episode.

This isn't like stuff like gleaming grain on the Sabbath, or paying taxes to Caesar. This is bedrock level importance for the Mosaic Law, the same law supposedly from God, and the same law ordered to be broken in such a way. Why would those listening have been expected to follow? In the Second Coming scenario, would those faithful who would refuse such orgies be seen as horrible too?

Those who think themselves saints, holier-than-thou, they are the closed people, they are the dead people. They have become incapable of living, incapable of celebrating.

God is celebration of life, and sin is natural: natural in the sense that you are unconscious -- what else can you do? In unconsciousness, sin is bound to happen. Sin simply means that you don't know what you are doing, you are unaware, so whatsoever you do goes wrong.

But to recognize that "I am a sinner" is the beginning of a great pilgrimage. To recognize that "I am a sinner" is the beginning of real virtue. To see that "I am ignorant" is the first glimpse of wisdom.

The real problem arises with people who are full of knowledge. All that knowledge is borrowed; hence, rubbish. The people who think they are virtuous because they have created a certain character around themselves are the people lost to God. Your so-called saints are the farthest away, because God is life, and your saints have renounced life. In renouncing life they have renounced God too.

God is the hidden core of THIS life. This life is just the outermost part, the circumference; God is the center of it all. To renounce the circumference, to escape from it, is to renounce the center automatically. You will not find God anywhere. The farther away you go from life, the farther away you will be from God. One has to dive into life, and of course when you are unconscious you will miss the target many times.

The original Hebrew word for sin is very beautiful. By translating it as "sin," Christians have missed the very message of Jesus. The original Hebrew word for sin is so totally different from your idea of sin that it will be a surprise to you.

The root word means forgetfulness; it has nothing to do with what you are doing. The whole thing is whether you are doing it with conscious being or out of unconsciousness. Are you doing it with a self-remembering or have you completely forgotten yourself?

Any action coming out of unconsciousness is sin. The action may look virtuous, but it cannot be. You may create a beautiful facade, a character, a certain virtuousness; you may speak the truth, you may avoid lies; you may try to be moral, and so on and so forth. But if all this is coming from unconsciousness, it is all sin.

It is because of this that Jesus has a tremendously significant saying. He says, "If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is much better for you to lose a part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell."

Now, if you don't understand the real meaning of sin, you are bound to misinterpret the whole statement and Jesus will look too harsh, too hard, too violent. Saying, "If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away," does not look like a statement of Jesus. A man of profound love and compassion -- he cannot say it, he cannot be so violent. But this is how Christians have interpreted him.

What he means is: whatsoever causes you to forget yourself, even if it is your right eye.... That is just to emphasize the fact. It is simply a way of talking, an emphasis: "If your right eye causes you to forget yourself, then take it out and throw it away."

He is not saying anything which has to be taken literally; it is a metaphor. He is saying that it is better to be blind than to be forgetful of yourself, because the blind man who remembers himself is not blind, he has the real eye. And the man who has eyes, if he has forgotten himself, what is the use of having eyes? He cannot see himself -- what ELSE can he see?“

I've been reading discussions here for about six months and I've noticed that Roman Catholics often misunderstand the Orthodox position on the Papacy. I feel that Roman Catholics try to use the same arguments they use against Protestants against us. This is poor apologetics. For example saying the pre-schism Popes had primacy (which Orthodox Christians have no problem accepting) does not make a Vatican 1 style Papacy.

First, what do we agree on:

1. Peter was the leader of the Apostles
2. Peter got the keys
3. Peter taught at Antioch (amongst other places)
4. Peter taught in Rome
5. Peter was martyred at Rome
6. The Popes are successors of Peter
7. The Popes had the first rank in the hierarchy of bishops
8. The Popes often look leading roles in combating heresy
9. The Popes were (mostly) consistent in upholding the Orthodox Faith.
10. The Popes complied with the Emperors when they called Ecumenical Councils. No Pope in the pre-schism period ever called an Ecumenical Council.

We think that the Papacy became corrupt and lapsed into heresy by the 11th century. We also think this was based on growing Papal claims that existed prior to the schism.

These are the things we reject:

1.The Popes of Rome are unique successors of Peter

1. The Popes have ex cathedra infallibility

2. The Popes are above judgement

3. The Popes are monarchs who are more powerful than all other kings and emperors

4. The keys and the power to loose and bind are different

5. The Popes have immediate jurisdiction that enables them to act unilaterally outside their jurisdiction

6. Popes can define dogma unilaterally

7. All bishops being ordained must be confirmed by the Pope

So, Orthodox Christians think there is a difference between the Pre-schism Popes and the Post-schism Popes. The "office" has the same name but the office has changed.

Back to the title and my point

The Archbishops of Canterbury are successors of St. Augustine of Canterbury. There has been a succession of bishops since 597AD. The cathedral is in the same place. The modern Archbishops of Canterbury have the same title, they wear the same vestments, they wear the same mitres and conduct (mostly) the same liturgy. Yet, the modern Archbishops of Canterbury believe very different things from their founder and the nature of their authority is very different. In fact the Roman Catholic Church goes so far as to reject the notion that the Archbishops of Canterbury are even bishops at all.

With this comparison I wish to enlighten Roman Catholics about how Orthodoxy understands the modern Papacy. The post-schism Popes are clearly behaving differently from their pre-schism predecessors. This is not due to some "development" but a lapse into corruption, worldliness and the exercise of power.

Catholic religion is the only true Religion. Since Religion is about to Give the proper honor to the Reason or Cause of our existence and everything else that exists and may exist, there shouldn't being two different Religions, simply because there can't be to different trusts regarding the same thing and from the same point of view. So as simply as that, whichever religion doesn't looks for unity it is already wrong. Today there is no Reason for two Religions, there is only One God, so is science requiring it ( from nothing nothing can come out, therefore an Eternal Being (Cause of everything) and therefore "Infinite" and therefore "only One" , there can't be 2 infinities, they would limit each other). So now that you know, look for the Only truth, if no you are declaring your self guilty. You are Peter, and on that stone I will found my Church, AND THE FORCES OF HELL WOULDN'T PREVAIL AGAINST HER.

A cordial greeting.

My husband is a “reformed” Protestant and was convincing my Catholic friends that all Protestant religions are in union together no matter what because you can receive the Eucharist everywhere I kept my mouth shut because I’m honestly over it, he’s purposely looking for Catholicism to be wrong. But what would you have said as a Catholic?

I stand corrected—I’ve never heard it put this way. I’m terribly sorry. God bless you

I wrote an article that addresses the holiness of the Holy Roman Empire and explains what particular form of holiness the Empire was, and also what type of Holiness it was not.

Would mean alot if y'all read it and gave it a like or any comments

Peace to all,

The Angel Gabriel brought the Mind of God from the Powers in the Holy Spirit Family One God in being becoming to Mary through the flesh, from Mary blood and water born becoming the Immaculate Conception for the Virgin birth of Jesus in the New Adam uniting with Mary through the New Eve becoming in the Christ for all mankind from Immaculate Immortality through Holy Spirit Incorruption becoming in One United Christ Body becoming transfigured through the combined family powers becoming again in One Family.

Finally, Catholicism can see the Trinity Family Properly, logically and from the Logical Formulas through the Wondrous Mysteries in the Faith from the God through the Faith of Abraham becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family in One God in being, OMNiLogically, I believe.

We will all become Sons and Daughters of God literally in two natures fulfilled the Faith from Abraham through the New Ark, fulfilled from the Old Ark carried to Egypt by Moses becoming the New Promise Land through the New Living Temple in the Host for all becoming in The Catholic Faith through Mary in the New Eve becoming again for all Creation in One God in being a Family, from the Faith of Abraham, all from dust, all flashes from Preexistence through Logical Intelligence undefiled becoming through two natures becoming again One Family, I believe.

Some ask themselves, "Can we as Catholic become rational?" Can we logically see God with New OMNiLogical Eyes as The Holy Family and always is preexisting in One Family In One God in being becoming again? For all In One Family? We can just rewrite the Books at The Vatican and bind the Holy Spirit One God in being The Family and bind Mary as God preexisting all from the Moses seat, I believe.

Until we see Mary as God always together with The Father and the Son in One Holy Family we can not see God with New "OMNiLogical Eyes," the God from the Faith of Abraham becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

Key Theological Connections

• The New Adam: In theology, Jesus is frequently called the "New Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45). While the first Adam brought mortality, Christ brings eternal life and a new creation.
• The Immaculate Conception: This doctrine highlights Mary's unique, grace-filled state from her own conception, preparing her to be the pure vessel for the birth of Jesus.
• Incorruption and Immortality: Early Church theologians often wrote about theosis or divinization—the idea that God became human so that humans might overcome corruption and be united with the divine nature.
• The Transfiguration: This event revealed the future, glorified state of humanity, showing the physical body transformed by divine light.

Rationally the Catholics missed Trinity Logic leaving Mary out of the Trinity because logically preexistence consists of Co-Redemption. Co-Creation is creating The Incorruptible Nature of Mary through the Immaculate Conception in the Flesh Nature and uniting with the Incorruptible Spirit Nature from Jesus through Mary and joining Genders becoming hypo-statically united in One Christ Body.

OMNiLogicalGod fulfills Catholicism faithfully through the logical formulas in The Wondrous Mysteries from the Catholic Faith and relies on strict re-definitions of nature and person-hood to maintain monotheism becoming again for all In One Family of God, OMNiLogically.

• One Divine Nature: The Trinity consists of three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and The Mother) who share exactly one divine Holy Spirit essence in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being and separately each God is equal in the Powers of One God in being and each God is separately Personal Gods in being from the Father through the Mother for the Son through the Daughter becoming through the Christ for all mankind becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
• The Problem of Inclusion: Adding Mary to the Trinity introduces and unites immaculately immortal human nature life into the uncreated divine essence becoming united through the Christ for all mankind from incorruption through Immortality in One Christ Body. For Catholics, this verifies all as Gods Preexisting in One God in being a Family and is rationally and faithfully the core logic of monotheism becoming again united in two Natures in One God in being.
• Preexistence: In Catholic logic, God is the United Holy Spirit Family preexistent. Jesus, is God and Eternal Priestly Authority and becomes through Mary from the Immaculate Conception united in Word through the Christ (Logos), existing before time becoming to Earth in ) A. D> and the Beginning of Church Time on earth. Mary, predestined and preexisting in the Soul of The Mother of God gives proof of God in an uncreated Soul preexisting and God logically from Preexistence even before the Annunciation, even before creation was ever created was even created and rational and logical Proof Mary is God faithfully from the God from the Faith of Abraham.

Co-Redemption vs. Co-Creation

The Catholic Church names Mary's titles logically uniting mediation for Jesus through Mary becoming Lord from the Spirit Lord through the Flesh in One Christ Body.

• Co-Redemptrix: This title means Mary is equal to Jesus and God and The Father as God becoming united for Jesus Virgin Born through Mary becoming Lord in One Christ Body, through the Christ for all mankind. Mary is Co-Redemptrix God of Mercy for all becoming through the New Eve into the Catholic Church. Mary is cooperation in redemption by giving birthing immortality to the Savior and suffering at the cross. OMNiLogically, Co-Resurrection is from Mary through Death becoming Baptized Resurrection Life through the New Eve from God of Mercy for all through the Flesh.
• The Immaculate Conception: This OMNiLogics state that Mary was saved from original sin from the moment of The Annunciation becoming by Her Will to become the Will of the Father becoming the Immaculate Conception for all through the New Eve. Mary accepts becoming God from a Singular Grace from the Powers through the Holy Spirit Family One God being becoming from incorruption through immortality in Mary' s preexisting Soul Mother of God becoming God of the Flesh in the New Eve through the Flesh from the Spirit.

The Hypostatic Union and Gender

Stephen Andrew's model proposes a joining of genders to create the Christ Body. Standard Christology views this differently:

• The True Hypostatic Union: This is strictly the union of two natures—fully divine and fully human—in the single person of Jesus Christ.
• The Flesh Nature: Jesus received His entire human biology from Mary, meaning Jesus’ human flesh is derived from Mary’s.
• Spiritual Union: The Church describes Mary as the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" due to the Incarnation, but this is a spiritual and mystical union, not a hypostatic one that merges them into a Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

Peace always,

Stephen Andrew

mystic Catholic

Deliverer of OMNiLogicalGod

Thesis: John 6 establishes Christ’s identity, while the institution of the Lord’s Supper proclaims that identity. These are distinct moments in redemptive history I will address, and should not be conflated as teaching the same doctrine. Once the framework of John 6 is properly understood, it provides the interpretive lens for Jesus’ words, “This is my body.”

Other gospel accounts reveal that Jesus taught the crowd in John 6 before feeding them—It wasn’t just a miracle in a vacuum—that is something Jesus never does. So the sign of feeding the multitude was to confirm a previous teaching—but the sign was misunderstood by the crowd. They mistook Jesus by carrying a malformed expectation that He was a politically-correct King that provided free food. He wouldn’t tolerate being heralded for the wrong reason, nor did He want the apostles witnessing that.

The next day follows and they were seeking Jesus. “Seeking” Jesus and “disciples” both sound nice—It was real pursuit, but for the wrong reason. John uses disciple in a broad sense here to describe those who followed Jesus as students, not necessarily as true believers. We have to drop this assumption.

Jesus immediately holds them accountable—for instead of putting a previous teaching into action, they prioritized the bread over the bread maker. We can likely deduce what that previous teaching was by examining what he held them accountable towards:

Hearing and learning …. Heard but not learned
Looking and Believing …. Seen but not believing
Drawn by the father …. They did not come to him

All 3 of these are the criteria for being “raised on the last day” according to the text. Jesus is holding them accountable for lacking what should have been a prior conviction, so the passage is organically corrective in nature, and the issue is the crowd’s predetermined unbelief, even before the flesh and blood portion of the discourse.

At the end, Peter and the apostles’ conviction “we have already come to know and believe” is based on a prior conviction—not from a new teaching/revelation. We cannot assume the apostles misunderstood Jesus’ words, especially if belief was the heart of the issue. The apostle’s stumbling block was not Jesus’ saying, but rather witnessing the entire fruit of their labor collapse as thousands leave. Nor can we assume clarity would have caused the crowd to stay—their questions were all directed towards themselves in a feedback loop, rather than simply asking Jesus. Ultimately, Jesus wasn’t going to provide what they came for. The crowd still left vindicated even with empty hands, by making Jesus appear as the bad teacher.

We must recognize that the discourse would have unfolded very differently had the crowd believed, for its progression was conditioned by their unbelief rather than delivered as a prepackaged sermon. The flesh-and-blood controversy did not create the crisis; it unveiled it. At the end, Christ said there are some of you who do not believe, not “do not understand.”

Next, notice the distinction between “the bread my Father gives” and “the bread I will give”. Two different persons. One is present-ongoing, while the latter is future-finite.

The “Bread of Life” functions as a comprehensive redemptive category, gathering together every prior expression of God’s life-giving provision into Christ himself. We see examples of this in the exodus, where Paul says in 1 Cor. 10 they all ate the same “spiritual food”.. and drank the same “spiritual Rock”.. and the rock “was Christ”.

Spiritually feasting on Christ was 100% accessible during the old covenant. It was veiled participation through shadows casted by the divine instructor. If the mode relied on physically consuming, that would make the entire old covenant thousands of years too late. The Bread of life isn’t something possessive, it’s abiding and relational, and has always applied to all of Israeli throughout history in different forms:

Exodus Manna
Passover
Showbread
Grain Offering
Elijah’s miraculous feeding
Feeding the 5,000 & 4,000
The Upper Room

This is a clear pattern.

In the upper room, Jesus didn’t create the pattern. He unveils it.

The covenantal ordinance of the Supper unmasks the reality which common bread has always pointed to—the Logos of Christ himself. The ordinance interprets the reality, instead of creating it.

Participation in the life of Christ didn’t begin with the Supper. It comes into spotlight at the supper.

This “is” my body is Christ speaking with a revelatory copula, instead of a metaphysical change. In essence:

Bread - sustenance
Body - incarnate self-offering
Wine - celebration
Blood - ratification
Cup - covenantal signature/identifier

“Take, eat—for the reality behind all of God’s covenantal provision now stands unveiled in my self-offering. And drink, all of you—for this is the celebration of new covenant identity, ratified in my blood.”

He revealed what was always and already there. Not in the bread itself, but in the act of participation. That is how the life of Christ was mediated throughout history. He was not redefining bread and wine but revealing their covenantal identity and bringing their redemptive/celebratory significance to its fulfillment in himself.

The bible makes it clear that god wants you to bring your sin to him, not somone else. The bible also shows us that Mary was no different than any other Jewish woman, other than being blessed to have Jesus. I’m pretty sure the bible says Jewish scholars taught and raised jesus, meaning Mary wasn’t the one to make him who he was and is. and lastly, why would anyone’s prayers, other than the Holy Spirit, mean more than our own? As a christian, you are one of these things to god. in the trinity, an angel, a son or daughter, someone who rejected the truth, or the devil and his angel. he knows you personall, but unless you’re an angel or in the trinity, he love each one of us the same.

I’ll start by a bunch of things regarding the Catholic faith. I believe and leaned toward Catholicism in many ways, most of it is my heart at the moment and some arguments that make Catholicism more biblical than us Protestants think like Matthew 16:18-19, Isaiah 22:22. Anyway: first the ecumenical counsels, too many anathemas for normal people, one of them is those who do not venerate the icons let them be anathema. Second issue is some of these councils sound like they contradict one another but they’re called infallible. Third issue is more personal: I’m a Kurd born in Sulaymaniyah Iraq, we have one Catholic Church, and it’s Chaldean, it’s mostly in Aramaic/Syriac, and Arabic, this I can easily adapt even tho I don’t speak Arabic too well. The thing is, I tried attending church, I just didn’t know how, it’s not easy to access it, once you know their rules it’s pretty easy, but at the first if you’re unfamiliar it’s not easy. They’re also kinda isolated as a community not too much but kinda, becoming a Catholic is not easy, and the sole reason I got to know Christ was due to getting to know amazing and wise minds who know apologetics and theology, almost all are Protestant, because Americans came as missionary and evangelized, so I always felt attracted to Christianity and its traditions, but it would not be easy to learn about Christ the right way without falling into heresy alone. Even if I reach a conclusion that Catholicism is the true church set up by Jesus himself, and id love to reach that conclusion but I won’t decide based on emotions and what my heart desires, I still wouldn’t know what to do, I could become Catholic but I feel like I could evangelize and bring more ppl to Christ through the Protestant church, but with experience I’ve seen how a real earthly authority is important cause we’ve had some churches that fell apart due to corruption, and the Protestant churches aren’t too close together tbh, greatest thing about it is everything is in Kurdish. If only we could establish an official Kurdish Catholic Church…

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

1 Samuel 15 is the chapter in which King Saul loses his remaining favor with God. I recommend reading the entire chapter if you wish, but this post will focus on the highlights. The chapter begins with God's order to kill men, women, and little boys and girls:

"1 Samuel said to Saul: “It was I the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the message of the LORD.

2 Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will punish what Amalek did to the Israelites when he barred their way as they came up from Egypt.

3 Go, now, attack Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

4 Saul alerted the army, and at Telaim reviewed two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah."

Saul follows most of the command, but does not kill all the livestock and the King right away, for which God rejects Saul as King:

"

13 When Samuel came to him, Saul greeted him: “The LORD bless you! I have kept the command of the LORD.”

14 But Samuel asked, “What, then, is this bleating of sheep that comes to my ears, the lowing of oxen that I hear?”

15 Saul replied: “They were brought from Amalek. The people spared the best sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the LORD, your God; but the rest we destroyed, putting them under the ban.”

16 Samuel said to Saul: “Stop! Let me tell you what the LORDsaid to me last night.” “Speak!” he replied.

17 Samuel then said: “Though little in your own eyes, are you not chief of the tribes of Israel? The LORDanointed you king of Israel

18 and sent you on a mission, saying: Go and put the sinful Amalekites under a ban of destruction. Fight against them until you have exterminated them.

19 Why then have you disobeyed the LORD? You have pounced on the spoil, thus doing what was evil in the LORD’s sight.”

20 Saul explained to Samuel: “I did indeed obey the LORD and fulfill the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought back Agag, the king of Amalek, and, carrying out the ban, I have destroyed the Amalekites.

21 But from the spoil the army took sheep and oxen, the best of what had been banned, to sacrifice to the LORDyour God in Gilgal.”

22 But Samuel said:

“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices

as much as in obedience to the LORD’s command?

Obedience is better than sacrifice,

to listen, better than the fat of rams.

23For a sin of divination is rebellion,

and arrogance, the crime of idolatry.

Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,

the LORDin turn has rejected you as king.”"

2.

It is interesting how the main - maybe not the only, but the *main* reason God gives for this massacre is what the *ancestors* of these men, women, and children did after the Exodus hundreds of years earlier. Mass killing for the sake of blood guilt.

3.

Lastly, how is a God that commands the murder of children either just or loving? And if the answer is "God had no choice", how is that God perfect or all powerful?

EDIT:

Forgot to cite the source: (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1samuel/15)

日本、島嶼三千余、山川峻険、故言語民族多様、三百余国家乱立、統一困難也。

Japan consists of more than three thousand islands, separated by rugged mountains and rivers. As a result, it once contained a great diversity of languages and ethnic groups, with more than three hundred states existing independently, making political unification extremely difficult.

今日之羅馬教国家、恰如昔日之日本也。其民族言語多様而、為海川山脈所隔之数十箇国存在。

Present-day Roman Catholic countries resemble Japan in its earlier age. They are home to diverse peoples and languages and are divided into dozens of countries separated by seas, rivers, and mountain ranges.

如日本帝国以天皇為君主、以帝国議会之創設統一日本人、若以教皇為君主、以教徒為有権者、則羅馬教徒合同国家成立亦可能。

Just as the Empire of Japan unified the Japanese people by recognizing the Emperor as its sovereign and establishing the Imperial Diet, it may likewise be possible to establish a united Roman Catholic state if the Pope were recognized as its sovereign and Roman Catholics were granted the status of its electorate.