Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[Matthias]

Great question.
There could be different answers....I've never spoken about this to any priest in any great length..
I'll tell you what one said to me ... a traditional priest, about 10 years or more ago.

I asked him....what if someone doesn't believe a dogma?
He said to pray about it.
What else could they say? "You're anathemized"?!
Should they be ex-communicated?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that obstinate denial is a sin.
So,,, we don't make it be obstinate! We pray about it.

Plus,,,different priests believe differently in the sense of being more conservative or less conservative.
Other than that,,,,I have no other idea.


CCC 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”1

That’s consistent with what the Catholic priests, deacons and nuns I’ve spoken with concerning the question over the years have said. I’m not persuaded by the argument.

I’m not picking on Catholics.

“I’m a Muslim but I don’t believe what Islam requires Muslims to believe.”

I wouldn’t be persuaded by someone making that argument either.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don’t define myself as Catholic: not because I don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches but because I do understand what the Catholic Church teaches.

The issue isn’t understanding. The issue is believing.

In my case....correct.

Try this:

“Matthias understands what the Catholic Church teaches but he doesn’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches is true.”

Substantially true, but even that would only be a partially correct statement. I can identify things the Catholic Church teaches that I fully agree with.

Ditto in my case.
They have deep theological understanding of matters that most times I don't even really understand because it requires a brain with capabilities beyond mine.

So I agree with your last statement.
Part of the problem,,,,if I've misunderstood you...is that so many post what they THINK the CC teaches, but which is does NOT.
So maybe I read something or other too fast. Sorry if I did that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, Jesus instructed His people to pray directly to the Father in His Name

John 16:23
And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

If the rcc people actually knew the Lord, they would pray to Him directly as Jesus instructed.

Jesus and His Apostles never once instructed anybody to ask Mary anything, or angels, other people that have been separated from this world.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
To “PRAY” simple means to ASK”. “WORSHIP” is a secondary definition and ius reserved only for God.
It is legal, juridical language that is used in court documents and police reports to this day.

Acts 27:34 - KJV
"Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you".

As to intercessory prayer that YOU reject - the Bible explicitly tells us to pray for one another (James 5:16, Matt. 5:44). Intercessory prayer is necessary because, as the Body of Christ, we all need each other (1 Cor. 12:18-20, 24-26).

And you STILL have no scripture showing where Jesus or His Apostles instructed His people to pray to Mary or to anyone else who has be separated from this world... all you are doing is following doctrines of demons but that's how the rcc people like to roll... in darkness

When YOU can show me a Scripture verse that shows when Mary and the saints in Heaven were kicked-OUT of the Body of Christ – you might have a point.
As it is – you reject the Scriptures, namely, (1 Cor. 12, which tells us that as the Body of Christ, we NEED each other.

 

[Lambano]

Sure.
But Mary was pure and holy in a way we're not.
What does holy mean?

"Holy" means "set apart for God's use". Which Mary clearly was.

The Jewish people were given many ceremonies to signify their set-apart-ness. One of which, I might add, was Mary's sacrifice of two turtle doves in Luke 2:22-24. This refers back to Leviticus 2:8 and signifies cleansing from the stain of giving birth to Jesus Himself. My takeaway here is that it's not just sin that stains us and affects our "set-apart-ness". ("Stain" being a metaphorical word, relating to the Biblical metaphor, "cleansing".)

So, Mary clearly was set apart for God's use in a unique way and should be respected for that. We're not told if she carried the stain of Adam's sin, we're not told if she had sins of her own. But she was set apart in a way that will never be duplicated.

 

[GodsGrace]

That’s consistent with what the Catholic priests, deacons and nuns I’ve spoken with concerning the question over the years have said. I’m not persuaded by the argument.

I’m not picking on Catholics.

“I’m a Muslim but I don’t believe what Islam requires Muslims to believe.”

I wouldn’t be persuaded by someone making that argument either.

OK
But that assumes the Muslim KNOWS what he's supposed to believe.
Most Catholics DO NOT.
I think a lot of this is left to the conscience.
Which brings up the always interesting question:
WELL THEN, ISN'T BETTER TO REMAIN IGNORANT?

I think God is a big God and will judge us according to how we followed the teachings of Jesus....not in the sense of quality because no one would get into the gate....but to the best of our ability and according to our conscience IF it has been formed by our faith.

Some think I'm a legalist because I believe in doing good works.
If only some knew how unlegalistic I am!
Here's what I like to say: Doctrine will not save us.
If it did....we'd have to go over the NT with a fine toothed comb and MAKE SURE we got it all right.

But we can't. We're only human and will make mistakes.

WE DO OUR BEST.
JESUS DOES THE REST.

 

[GodsGrace]

"Holy" means "set apart for God's use". Which Mary clearly was.

The Jewish people were given many ceremonies to signify their set-apart-ness. One of which, I might add, was Mary's sacrifice of two turtle doves in Luke 2:22-24. This refers back to Leviticus 2:8 and signifies cleansing from the stain of giving birth to Jesus Himself. My takeaway here is that it's not just sin that stains us and affects our "set-apart-ness". ("Stain" being a metaphorical word, relating to the Biblical metaphor, "cleansing".)

So, Mary clearly was set apart for God's use in a unique way and should be respected for that. We're not told if she carried the stain of Adam's sin, we're not told if she had sins of her own. But she was set apart in a way that will never be duplicated.

OK
I agree. There's too much we don't know and I'm not making any definitive statement here.
What I'm saying is that it makes sense to me ---- I mean the IC.

Just want to throw this in...
Mary went to the temple to be cleansed....
Jesus was baptized by John....
Did He really need to?

Just a thought.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You should not be fantasizing about people's pants being down... I know lots of rcc leaders are in to that sort of perversion

I should have known that someone with your limited intellect would be confused by the euphemisms.

Perhaps you'll understand the following headlines outlining the epidemic of molestation going on in your own Protestant circles . . .

How Protestant Churches Hid Sexual Abuse ...​

Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor

Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches

Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups

Confronting Evangelical Enabling of Sexual Abuse

Bombshell: sex abuse, coverup in America's largest Protestant ...

Southern Baptist leaders covered up sex abuse, kept secret ...

Clergy Abuse Coverup within the Protestant Church

A History of Sex Abuse in the Protestant Imagination

FAQ: Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy - The Doan Law Firm​

1 in 10 Young Protestants Have Left a Church Over Abuse

Evangelicals ‘worse’ than Catholics on sexual abuse

Evangelical Sex Abuse Record ‘Worse’ Than Catholic, Says Billy Graham’s Grandson

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’

Child Sex Abuse More Prevalent Among Protestants Than Among Catholics

There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic

Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy

Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor

Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches

Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups

U.S. Protestants’ Views Mixed about Extent of Clergy Sexual Abuse

Churchgoers Split on Existence of More Sexual Abuse by Pastors

Confronting Evangelical Enabling of Sexual Abuse

Child abuse a Calvinist problem, podcast says

 

[Matthias]

OK
But that assumes the Muslim KNOWS what he's supposed to believe.
Most Catholics DO NOT.

Shame on their clergy if they have failed to instruct them.

I think a lot of this is left to the conscience.

I’m anathematized by the Catholic Church (and others) for being a conscientious objector.

Which brings up the always interesting question:
WELL THEN, ISN'T BETTER TO REMAIN IGNORANT?

I think God is a big God and will judge us according to how we followed the teachings of Jesus....not in the sense of quality because no one would get into the gate....but to the best of our ability and according to our conscience IF it has been formed by our faith.

Some think I'm a legalist because I believe in doing good works.
If only some knew how unlegalistic I am!
Here's what I like to say: Doctrine will not save us.
If it did....we'd have to go over the NT with a fine toothed comb and MAKE SURE we got it all right.

But we can't. We're only human and will make mistakes.

WE DO OUR BEST.
JESUS DOES THE REST.

I believe in a doctrine which is called the wider hope. You’re essentially summarizing it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Circular Reasoning.

1. You are taking something that is NOT the NT as a higher authority than what the NT says, i.e.., subordinating something of higher authority to something of lower authority.
2. Because of this, we disagree.
3. From this, you conclude the NT is insufficient.

Frankly, I don't care if we agree or not. Agreement is not the standard by which I live. What God's word says is the standard by which I live.

Frankly, I don't care if we agree or not.
I gave you the reason why simply reading the NT is NOT SUFFICIENT because if it were we'd all agree on every doctrine.
And I don't mean WE here on this forum....I mean the denominations we belong to. Maybe there shouldn't even be denominations.
Sounds very Catholic, doesn't it?

Having said that, I fully recognize the book is a general guide on how to live.

It's general?
I think it's very specific.
The very reason that you think it's general is why we have differing OPINIONS.

It is certainly not the authority on modern specifics, like how to go from Boston to Miami, how many calories in peanut butter, the density of osmium, who the President is, what time is it, etc.

Got anything else silly to report?

On the subject matter contained, I deny the claim there is a better reference. There may be corroborating references. There may be references that contradict the authoritative reference. Still, I rely on the authoritative reference and not less authoritative references. If we disagree, so be it.

Corroborating references are good.

So you rely on the authoratative reference.....
I do too...but it presents some problems.....

Let's consider this:
IS OSAS A CORRECT DOCTRINE?
ARE GOOD WORKS NECESSARY TO BE SAVED?
HOW IS ONE SAVED? IS BELIEF IN JESUS ENOUGH OR DID HE SAY WE HAVE TO DO MORE?
WHY ARE WE BAPTIZED?

There's more.

 

[GodsGrace]

Shame on their clergy if they have failed to instruct them.

Agreed. But they can't figure out how to fix it....or it's too much trouble to.
Different methods are tried every now and then....but nothing definitive.
RCIA works well, but it's only for converts.

I’m anathematized by the Catholic Church (and others) for being a conscientious objector.

As long as God doesn't anathematize you.

I believe in a doctrine which is called the wider hope. You’re essentially summarizing it.

Wider Hope sounds good.
Here's what I believe salvation is:
BELIEVE IN GOD
OBEY HIM

 

[BreadOfLife]

Interesting response.

Can you imagine the Jews at the time of Christ saying the same? And yet he cleaned out the money changers (leprously) multiple times until he had the place leveled.

Several times??

He did that ONCE, but there are four versions of the incident (Matt. 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48). Maybe that was the cause of your confusion . . .

RCC believers cannot discern the text because they are legal minded believers who have been indoctrinated with lies.

If I speak in spiritual principles you cannot hear them can you?

F2F

YOU wouldn’t understand a Biblical principle if it kicked you in the behind with a steel boot . . .

 

[Wrangler]

Frankly, I don't care if we agree or not.
I gave you the reason why simply reading the NT is NOT SUFFICIENT because if it were we'd all agree on every doctrine.

Just repeated your Circular Reasoning.

And I don't mean WE here on this forum....I mean the denominations we belong to. Maybe there shouldn't even be denominations.
Sounds very Catholic, doesn't it?

I have a VERY positive view on denomination. No other religion has such flowering, attempting to be all things to all people.

In my view, the denominational differences tend to be more on culture (Russian Orthodox, Southern Bapist, Church of England) and focus than doctine. Now hear me. This does not mean there is no doctrinal difference. It's that there is far more that unites than divides. As Ronald Reagan said, someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is not your enemy.

It's general?
I think it's very specific.

Got anything else silly to report?

What you call silly is putting down where the Bible is not a specific guide. Sure, it is a specific moral guide but we need more guidance than that as I showed.

Let's consider this:
IS OSAS A CORRECT DOCTRINE?

No.

ARE GOOD WORKS NECESSARY TO BE SAVED?

No.

HOW IS ONE SAVED? IS BELIEF IN JESUS ENOUGH OR DID HE SAY WE HAVE TO DO MORE?

Faith = Belief + Works

Some say all you need to do is believe but this is treating synonymously sense of words that are taken to be different. True faith has works. If you truly believe, it will be seen in your fruit, in your transformed life. Just saying the words is not enough.

To be clear, there is the general term "work" that is different from the Biblical term "works." We are not saved by our works. However, in the general sense, true believe involves "work," the work of the transformed, transformed by the grace extended by your true belief. If you truly believe, you will follow God's will and commands, PERIOD.

This is different from building a church or donating to the poor so that by your own glorious works, you are saved. No one is saved by their own effort so no man may brag.

WHY ARE WE BAPTIZED?

It's a symbolic and public sacrement of what has already taken place in the heart.

There's more.

Yup. There is more and none of this illogical attempt at distraction takes away from the minor Biblical truth that Mary had other children. (I say minor because it is not a salvation issue.)

 

[BreadOfLife]

And these did not contradict what was already written...the “types and shadows” were not new ideas but clarified beliefs already held, though not fully understood until it was God’s due time to reveal them.

The first Christians were all Jews, so they had a Jewish understanding about who the Messiah would be and what role he would play in the Kingdom they believed to be entirely earthly. There was not the vaguest notion of any human going to heaven. By the time Jesus arrived the religious leaders of the Jewish people had a long history of apostasy. It had been about 300 years since God had even bothered to send a prophet to his wayward people.....they never listened and obeyed anyway.

His last attempt to lead his people to repentance was the presence of his last prophet....His only begotten son. Only a “remnant” of the Jewish people accepted him...the rest of the nation applauded his murder based on the lies taught to them by their corrupt leadership.

The devil always had his way with them, appealing to wealth, prominence and power to lure fallen men to do his bidding. We don’t have to imagine what state the Jewish faith was in after 300 years of teaching apostasy and man made traditions...! We have Jesus’ own words to tell us what he observed. (Matt 15:7-9; the whole of Matt ch 23)
Jesus said the same thing would happen to Christianity....”weeds” planted by the devil would enter the church and corrupt in exactly the same way. The devil has no new tricks.

This apostasy was beginning at the close of the first century but the presence of the apostles had acted as a “restraint” until the last contribution to the Christian Scriptures was recorded by the apostle John. When this last apostle died.....the weeds began to flourish as the church began a downward spiral that resulted in the fusion religion of the Roman Catholic church around 300 years after the death of Christ. Doctrines cooked up in previous centuries were accepted, in spite of the fact that they had no origin in Scripture but were forced on the ignorant masses who had no access to the Scriptures themselves.
There was no way to check to see if what they were teaching was even true. The church used fear to destroy truth and introduce their lies.

Fast forward to this 21st century and see what the devil has accomplished.....”Christianity” is a mess, divided and conflicting....not even a shadow of what Jesus and his apostles began.

How does one find the “wheat” among those “weeds”....is it like trying to find a diamond in that pile of broken glass? Only God can reveal his truth (John 6:65) and none of it conflicts with what is written in His word. There are no new truths....only clarified details of truths that were already in the Scriptures.

That you for that rather verbose rant.

A couple of things –
NOT exactly sure where you get your revisionist information about the Catholic Church being a “fusion religion” that arose in the fourth century.

As a matter of fact, the Church was being called the “Catholic Church” by the end of the first century. We see this in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch, which was already an established fact by t the beginning of the second century.

This is again, an entirely “Catholic” belief......nowhere does Scripture associate Mary with the Ark of the Covenant.

Types and shadows are just that – types and shadows. They’re NOT explicit revelations about the fulfillment. Joseph and Moses are shadows of Jesus - but it’s not explicitly mentioned.

I just have you a solid Scriptural argument for Mary being the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - and all I get from YOU is denial. How about a solid Scriptural refutation??

Every one of those twisted verses depends on inference, not biblically solid fact. You fall for the power of suggestion.

This is a pathetic and impotent response to the truth of those revelation of those verses.

The Ark of the Covenant was removed from man’s possession for the same reason that the copper serpent was removed from Israel...they turned it into an idol.

Idolatry is blatantly practiced in Catholicism of every persuasion....it’s as though the 2nd Commandment was never stated....

“Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (DRA)

“You shall not make idols or any image of things that are in the heavens above or that are upon the earth or that are in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow before them nor shall you serve them. I, the Lord, am your God, a jealous God, who punishes the sins of fathers upon their sons until the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but I will show my favor for a thousand generations of those who love me and observe my commandments. (NCB)

Yet there it is in your own Bibles.....it’s the “making” of images that is forbiden....so what is this....other than blatant idolatry? If you don’t make images, you can’t bow down to them, or venerate them....can you?

Mary does not figure in Scripture as she does in a pseudo Christian religion that is a weird mixture of paganism and Christianity.....the well is so poisoned that all who drink from it will perish.

Thank you for displaying your utter ignorance of Scripture.
It was NOT the making of images that was forbidden – but the WORSHIP of them as gods.

God commanded Moses to create 2 golden Angels to place atop the Ark. He later commanded Moses to create a bronze serpent and place it on a pole so that people would be healed by gazing upon it.

If it was only the making of images+ - then YOU would be sinning by having pictures in your wallet r on your walls or mantle at home. Your driver’s license would be an abomination. Every artist in the world would be guilty, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

And some of the rcc peoples try to gaslight everyone by claiming they don't worship Mary!
View attachment 52529

They're not "worshipping" Mary ANY more than these people are "worshipping" their dead relatives, Einstein . .

 

[Verily]

The LORD does tell Moses to make the fiery serpent and set it upon a pole

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Numbers 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Jesus said,

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

John 3:14 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The law showing a shadow of things there

Returning back to the OT, Hezekiah deliberately broke the brasen serpent God commanded Moses to make because they started burning incense to it (and not just beholding it)

2 Kings 18:4 He (Hezekiah) removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan (thing of brass)

And it also said Hezekiah did what was right before the LORD in the breaking of the image God commanded Moses to make. Even though some use the firey serpent on a pole as an example of an icon (and not idol) and justify the burning of incense to it. In some circles, they do what is called censing icons. But this cannot be justified using the brasen serpent since that is what the Israelites were doing before it before it was justifiably destroyed (with the LORD's approval).

Posting the context

2 Kings 18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

2 Kings 18:5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.

2 Kings 18:6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.

Even though Moses was commanded to make it Hezekiah had no such reverence towards it, just a "thing of brass" but it become more than that to the Israelites, an object of devotion above what was commanded.

 

[Matthias]

The LORD does tell Moses to make the fiery serpent and set it upon a pole

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Numbers 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Jesus said,

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

John 3:14 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The law showing a shadow of things there

Returning back to the OT, Hezekiah deliberately broke the brasen serpent God commanded Moses to make because they started burning incense to it (and not just beholding it)

2 Kings 18:4 He (Hezekiah) removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan (thing of brass)

And it also said Hezekiah did what was right before the LORD in the breaking of the image God commanded Moses to make. Even though some use the firey serpent on a pole as an example of an icon (and not idol) and justify the burning of incense to it. In some circles, they do what is called censing icons. But this cannot be justified using the brasen serpent since that is what the Israelites were doing before it before it was justifiably destroyed (with the LORD's approval).

Posting the context

2 Kings 18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

2 Kings 18:5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.

2 Kings 18:6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.

Even though Moses was commanded to make it Hezekiah had no such reverence towards it, just a "thing of brass" but it become more than that to the Israelites, an object of devotion above what was commanded.

Do we conclude from this that Mary did or didn’t have other children?

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Verily]

Do we conclude from this that Mary did or didn’t have other children?

Welcome to the forum.

No absolutely not, someone else mentioned the Brasen serpent I was just adding that to the point.

But that had nothing more to do with Mary having other children as my own post. I didnt realize it was so strict here. You can delete my account, sorry about that.

 

[Matthias]

No absolutely not, someone else mentioned the Brasen serpent I was just adding that to the point.

I either didn’t see the post you are referring to or did and forgot all about it.

But that had nothing more to do with Mary having other children as my own post.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn’t see an obvious connection and now I understand that you weren’t attempting to make any such connection.

I didnt realize it was so strict here. You can delete my account, sorry about that.

I don’t have the authority to delete anyone’s account. Even if I did, I see no reason that would justify deleting your account. I’m sorry that my comment caused you to feel this way. Please accept my apology.

 

[GodsGrace]

No absolutely not, someone else mentioned the Brasen serpent I was just adding that to the point.

But that had nothing more to do with Mary having other children as my own post. I didnt realize it was so strict here. You can delete my account, sorry about that.

Hi Verily
Misunderstanding here.
You have a lot to offer and I hope you continue here.
Only moderators can ban a member but you did nothing to warrant bannig - it's not that easy or none of us would be here!
The other member just wasn't understanding why you were posting about the brazen snake.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Verily]

Matthias and GodsGrace I should have said you can "delete my post" rather than account, its all good here.

I am the one who actually created the misunderstanding by not quoting what it was I was addressing in the post so contrarywise forgive me. You guys didn't do anything wrong.

And thanks for the welcome, I will try and do better in communicating.