You are wrong st John the baptist was conceived in the womb of Elizabeth by miracle Use your logic did you expect old Zachariah have a contact with a old woman?
I suggest you use your own logic as well as consider Catholic teaching on the matter. Augustine says that Original Sin passes to us by generation from our parents. The Baptist was subject to original sin (if you think he was immaculately conceived, then that is a further error). There is a common teaching amongst theologians, confirmed by Jesus to Valtorta, that John was sanctified in Elizabeth's womb, i.e. cleansed from Original Sin. He therefore must have contracted it originally from his parents. This suggests that his parents had sexual intercourse. He was conceived miraculously in that process, but contracted Original Sin due to his conception being via intercourse. I do not know why you think it strange for a husband to have relations with his wife after she has passed her child-bearing years (around 44 years old). It is absurd to think that this would stop at 44. Elizabeth may have been in her 50s. Look at Luke 1:24. It is only after Zechariah returns home that Elizabeth conceives. So, it is clear that he needed to be there for the conception to happen, even though it was a miracle. Finally, if you wish to tell me that I am wrong so definitively, I suggest you have some Catholic teaching to back up your forthright statement.
@@jerzygutowski3170 why not. You are meant to. She is his wife. Before the song of songs was accepted as canonical. Some Jews argued it was too sexual. The winning argument was that God is like a man who wants to make love to his wife. Gods love for Israel was the same.
At Mass yesterday, The Baptism of the Lord, the priest in his homily referring to the Jesus’ baptism commented that the disciples of John were so overcome by John’s response to Jesus that some even saw a dove descending on the scene. He seemed to imply that the some of the disciples of John were in such a state of spiritual awe that they apprehended a dove. I don’t think the priest meant any harm by this comment but it immediately got under my skin. I think that the dove was a manifestation from God in addition to an audible voice that everyone saw. What do you make of this comment? Am I making too much of this? Anybody here care to comment? Thank you.
The priest is suffering from the infection of the heresy of Modernism. If he states that what Scripture says occurred did not in fact happen, then why not say the enthusiasm of the Apostles made them see the Risen Jesus in their imagination, too. This priest's attitude is one of the reasons Jesus gave the Poem of the Man-God to us so that we could see that the events described in Scripture actually took place.
@ yes, you and I are on the same page with this! He didn’t technically say that the dove manifestation didn’t happen but that was the takeaway for me. He means well in a milk toast kind of way. I’m past the point of getting myself all worked up. I do speak up when I can. I feel bad for him in a way- he’s definitely living in a cultural past, having grown up in a large, intact Irish Catholic family. He always uses his upbringing as examples in his homilies. He’s just over 70. He appears ill equipped to deal with the actuality of society at large. I mean no disrespect to the office of the priesthood. I’ve turned a corner recently after praying about him and other priests I come across, I feel moved by the Holy Spirit to offer a cheerful, loving, appreciative attitude rather than a closed down critical one. The poor guy is handling a large parish basically on his own. This is his retirement year. Thanks for your response!
@@MegaLori50 Your attitude is right. Jesus notes that Maria Valtorta prays for priests regularly each week, but then insists that she pray for them every day.
The depiction is based soely on Maria Valtorta's visions. My initial dozen videos give reason as to why those visions are probably true. Hence, the possibly fairly rare occurence of blue eyes amongst ancient Hebrews bring characteric of my depictions of Jesus.
In this dictation Jesus Himself says: "Neither did I need to be baptised. But the wisdom of the Lord had chosen that moment and way for our meeting." That is, His and the Baptist's meeting. What Jesus goes on to say suggests that the Father wanted the Precursor and the Messiah to be together when He, the Father, spoke from the Heavens and the Spirit descended. I would add that subjects of a Christian kingdom anoint their kings; those subjects being priests (i.e. God's representatives), e.g. the Archbishop anointing King Charles III in our time. The Baptist was God's representative "anointing" the Messiah. Further, Jesus was circumcised, followed the Law, but did not have to do any of this. In my view, His action, like the Baptism, show His validation of the ceremony and His solidarity with Israel and mankind. It is a traditional Catholic view that He spiritually purified all water (for future Christian baptism) by being baptised. If there is something in the video link that you consider relevant, do let me know. You will, presumably, have watched it, and it would save time if you tell me the relevant bit.
![Baptism of Jesus [Maria Valtorta vision]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O6coL3FpxDw/mqdefault.jpg)
You are wrong st John the baptist was conceived in the womb of Elizabeth by miracle Use your logic did you expect old Zachariah have a contact with a old woman?
I suggest you use your own logic as well as consider Catholic teaching on the matter. Augustine says that Original Sin passes to us by generation from our parents. The Baptist was subject to original sin (if you think he was immaculately conceived, then that is a further error).
There is a common teaching amongst theologians, confirmed by Jesus to Valtorta, that John was sanctified in Elizabeth's womb, i.e. cleansed from Original Sin. He therefore must have contracted it originally from his parents.
This suggests that his parents had sexual intercourse. He was conceived miraculously in that process, but contracted Original Sin due to his conception being via intercourse.
I do not know why you think it strange for a husband to have relations with his wife after she has passed her child-bearing years (around 44 years old). It is absurd to think that this would stop at 44. Elizabeth may have been in her 50s.
Look at Luke 1:24. It is only after Zechariah returns home that Elizabeth conceives. So, it is clear that he needed to be there for the conception to happen, even though it was a miracle.
Finally, if you wish to tell me that I am wrong so definitively, I suggest you have some Catholic teaching to back up your forthright statement.
@@jerzygutowski3170 why not. You are meant to. She is his wife. Before the song of songs was accepted as canonical. Some Jews argued it was too sexual. The winning argument was that God is like a man who wants to make love to his wife. Gods love for Israel was the same.
I remember where I have seen you before now.. Fr Jeremy Davies..
Speakers' Corner. God bless Fr Jeremy.
🙏🏼✝️👍🏻
not keen on the backgroung noise
Yeah it's kind of annoying.
At Mass yesterday, The Baptism of the Lord, the priest in his homily referring to the Jesus’ baptism commented that the disciples of John were so overcome by John’s response to Jesus that some even saw a dove descending on the scene. He seemed to imply that the some of the disciples of John were in such a state of spiritual awe that they apprehended a dove.
I don’t think the priest meant any harm by this comment but it immediately got under my skin. I think that the dove was a manifestation from God in addition to an audible voice that everyone saw. What do you make of this comment? Am I making too much of this? Anybody here care to comment? Thank you.
The priest is suffering from the infection of the heresy of Modernism. If he states that what Scripture says occurred did not in fact happen, then why not say the enthusiasm of the Apostles made them see the Risen Jesus in their imagination, too. This priest's attitude is one of the reasons Jesus gave the Poem of the Man-God to us so that we could see that the events described in Scripture actually took place.
@ yes, you and I are on the same page with this! He didn’t technically say that the dove manifestation didn’t happen but that was the takeaway for me. He means well in a milk toast kind of way. I’m past the point of getting myself all worked up. I do speak up when I can. I feel bad for him in a way- he’s definitely living in a cultural past, having grown up in a large, intact Irish Catholic family. He always uses his upbringing as examples in his homilies. He’s just over 70. He appears ill equipped to deal with the actuality of society at large. I mean no disrespect to the office of the priesthood. I’ve turned a corner recently after praying about him and other priests I come across, I feel moved by the Holy Spirit to offer a cheerful, loving, appreciative attitude rather than a closed down critical one. The poor guy is handling a large parish basically on his own. This is his retirement year. Thanks for your response!
@@MegaLori50 Your attitude is right. Jesus notes that Maria Valtorta prays for priests regularly each week, but then insists that she pray for them every day.
@@catholicreconquista7456 note taken, I’m going to up my prayers.
I highly doubt that Jesus had blue eyes. By the way, have you read Dostoyevsky, especially "The Grand Inquisitor"?
The depiction is based soely on Maria Valtorta's visions. My initial dozen videos give reason as to why those visions are probably true. Hence, the possibly fairly rare occurence of blue eyes amongst ancient Hebrews bring characteric of my depictions of Jesus.
Yes, that is a fascinating story. From a typical "Orthodox" Catholic-hater. Great literature, though.
See me that guy i saw had green eyes lol 😂😂😂😂😂The Illuminatis Christianism lol😂😂😂
Why was Jesus Baptized if he’s SINLESS and GOD ? ruclips.net/video/5ION-8ytufg/видео.htmlsi=E0PDrW7pt3grDFq3
In this dictation Jesus Himself says: "Neither did I need to be baptised. But the wisdom of the Lord had chosen that moment and way for our meeting." That is, His and the Baptist's meeting. What Jesus goes on to say suggests that the Father wanted the Precursor and the Messiah to be together when He, the Father, spoke from the Heavens and the Spirit descended.
I would add that subjects of a Christian kingdom anoint their kings; those subjects being priests (i.e. God's representatives), e.g. the Archbishop anointing King Charles III in our time. The Baptist was God's representative "anointing" the Messiah.
Further, Jesus was circumcised, followed the Law, but did not have to do any of this. In my view, His action, like the Baptism, show His validation of the ceremony and His solidarity with Israel and mankind.
It is a traditional Catholic view that He spiritually purified all water (for future Christian baptism) by being baptised.
If there is something in the video link that you consider relevant, do let me know. You will, presumably, have watched it, and it would save time if you tell me the relevant bit.
I also give an additional explanation at the end of yesterday's video of the Baptism itself.
He was setting an example to follow.
@@catholicreconquista7456 sam is really good recently became catholic
You are right. He is an encyclopaedia when it comes to the Bible. He just needs to be careful with the bad language!