# Is Mary The Mother Of God ?



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

As The Prayer says, is Mary the Mother Of God ?

The Hail Mary (sometimes called the "Angelical salutation", sometimes, from the first words in its Latin form, the "Ave Maria") is the most familiar of all the prayers used by the Universal Church in honour of our Blessed Lady. 

It is commonly described as consisting of three parts. The first, "Hail (Mary) full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women", embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28). The second, "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)", is borrowed from the Divinely inspired greeting of St. Elizabeth (Luke 1:42), which attaches itself the more naturally to the first part, because the words "benedicta tu in mulieribus" (I, 28) or "inter mulieres" (I, 42) are common to both salutations. Finally, the petition "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." is stated by the official "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to have been framed by the Church itself. "Most rightly", says the Catechism, "has the Holy Church of God added to this thanksgiving, petition also and the invocation of the most holy Mother of God, thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtain for us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end." Catholicencyclopedia.com

Is she the Mother Of God and can Interceed for Humans , or is that against the verse that says, "there is only one mediator between God and Men Christ The Man "??


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 26, 2010)

Was she the mother of Jesus?  Is/Was Jesus God?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Here comes the Catholic bashing.


----------



## Randy (Apr 26, 2010)

She was the mother of Jesus.  She can do no more to get you in to Heaven than any pastor.  Only through Jesus do we get there.

Not Catholic bashing here.  Worship ever how many people you want, but only one gets you to Heaven.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Randy said:


> She was the mother of Jesus. She can do no more to get you in to Heaven than any pastor. Only through Jesus do we get there.
> 
> Not Catholic bashing here. Worship ever how many people you want, but only one gets you to Heaven.


 
Randy is correct. 

So why ask? Why ask your pastor to pray for you? Why ask Mary to pray for you? Why ask anyone to pray for you? Does it do any good to have someone else pray for you or for your intentions?

Maybe folks should ask themselves that the next time they have a family tragedy and come on the board asking for prayers. 

Do they do it just to make themselves feel better? Or is there power in prayer?


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

Why is it Catholic Bashing to discuss this doctrine ?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Is she the Mother Of God and can Interceed for Humans ?


 
Yes, She is the Mother of God

Yes, She can interceed just like Lowjack can when he prays for others


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

...


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

I gave an honest answer to what I believe to be a honest question.

You can see how that has worked out.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Randy is correct.
> 
> So why ask? Why ask your pastor to pray for you? Why ask Mary to pray for you? Why ask anyone to pray for you? Does it do any good to have someone else pray for you or for your intentions?
> 
> ...


 


Dominic said:


> Yes, She is the Mother of God
> 
> Yes, She can interceed just like Lowjack can when he prays for others


 
Intercessory Prayer has and always will be a vital part of any religion. It is not only Christianity that uses it. I see nothing wrong with the prayer nor its wording.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 26, 2010)

The Greek word ascribed to Mary is Theotokos or "God-bearer", since she bore God in her womb.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Why is it Catholic Bashing to discuss this doctrine ?



It is a completely loaded post.  You know it.
And these posts go downhill fast.
Do not forget the earlier warnings given to us from the Admins and Mods.  It will not be tolerated.

I wonder if some folks are simply bent on causing strife.

How any minister of any faith could "Ignore" any other human being is beyond me.


----------



## Randy (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Randy is correct.
> 
> So why ask? Why ask your pastor to pray for you? Why ask Mary to pray for you? Why ask anyone to pray for you? Does it do any good to have someone else pray for you or for your intentions?
> 
> ...



Now that is not exactly what I said.  We can pray for people and there is power in prayer but we can not get people in to Heaven nor can Mary.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Randy said:


> Now that is not exactly what I said. We can pray for people and there is power in prayer but we can not get people in to Heaven nor can Mary.


 

Sorry, I did not mean to put words in mouth. 

Again you are correct, there is only one way into Heaven.


----------



## earl (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> As The Prayer says, is Mary the Mother Of God ?
> 
> The Hail Mary (sometimes called the "Angelical salutation", sometimes, from the first words in its Latin form, the "Ave Maria") is the most familiar of all the prayers used by the Universal Church in honour of our Blessed Lady.
> 
> ...




The Catholic bashing comes about via your last question. None of the prior writings and prayers say that Mary can interceed for humans in the sense of giving them salvation. Dom has given the correct answer. It is odd that you ask an obviously  loaded question and have the ones who can give the correct answer on ignore. That shows how interested you are in having an intelligent discussion. 
Attack on ,oh rabbi ,reverend, pastor , founder of 300 + churches,missionary extrodinaire.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 26, 2010)

A furth clarification question I suppose....


Yes, Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the mother of Jesus....who is God.  I don't think I have an issue there.

But was she any more the "mother" than a step-mom is "mother" to her step-children?

In the catholic faith (or protestant for that matter), is she considered to have contributed half the genetic make-up of Jesus, the human being?

I have always considered her a surrogate, blessed of God for the specific purpose of carrying and delivering Christ into human form.  That is not to diminish the importance of who she was or how incredible she must have been in order to be chosen for the task. 

But I don't consider her to be the biological mother of Christ.  Do you guys?


I have never really understood why Mary holds a place of such reverence in the Catholic church.  I suppose that's my interpretation of LJ's question.  Why, specifically do we need Mary to pray for us as opposed to Pastor Jim or Joe Bob, or a prayer warrior like my friend Miss Kay....or whoever?  

I think the issue is that it "appears" as though her prayers for us are, somehow, more readily heard by God.  And do we ask any other dead people to pray for us?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

I do have another question.

Do you consider Christ to be a Davidic King?


----------



## earl (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> A furth clarification question I suppose....
> 
> 
> Yes, Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the mother of Jesus....who is God.  I don't think I have an issue there.
> ...





The bible says she was. It does not call her a vessel . Any scriptural back up  on her not being the real deal ? That would seriously  blow the Jewish connection and I don't think LJ could stand for that .


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> A furth clarification question I suppose....
> 
> 
> Yes, Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the mother of Jesus....who is God.  I don't think I have an issue there.
> ...




I didn't answer the original question from the OP because it was obvious trolling...but I'll answer yours.

I believe her to be the biological mother of Christ.  She is/was not the mother of God.  God was obviously around before Mary.  

I believe that somehow, the Holy Spirit did a miraculous deed and Christ was born from Mary.  After all, isn't that what makes a mother a mother?

Where it gets interesting is the fact that Christ was 100% God and 100% Human at the same time.


----------



## Randy (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> But I don't consider her to be the biological mother of Christ.  Do you guys?



Yes technically she is the biological mother.  A more comparable comparrison (can you say that twice?) is your heart doctor.  He can fix your heart (most of the time) but his mother cannot.  Mary has no more power to get you in to heaven than your heart doctor's mother can fix your heart.  Yes without either there would be neither but that is as far as it goes.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Apr 26, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Was she the mother of Jesus?  Is/Was Jesus God?



Bingo!





Dominic said:


> Randy is correct.
> 
> So why ask? Why ask your pastor to pray for you? Why ask Mary to pray for you? Why ask anyone to pray for you? Does it do any good to have someone else pray for you or for your intentions?
> 
> ...




Lot of food for thought right there boys and girls....






centerpin fan said:


> The Greek word ascribed to Mary is Theotokos or "God-bearer", since she bore God in her womb.



I did not know that, thanks for the info 






Huntinfool said:


> A furth clarification question I suppose....
> 
> 
> Yes, Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the mother of Jesus....who is God.  I don't think I have an issue there.
> ...



Yes


Totally off topic , But it makes you wonder what Jesus Christ DNA/Helix looked like doesn't it...
I mean he has half of Mary's DNA because she indeed did bear Him from the Womb, But what does the half from The HS look like?

Things that make go Hmmmmmm..


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

This...


Dominic said:


> Do you consider Christ to be a Davidic King?


 
goes to this...



Huntinfool said:


> I have never really understood why Mary holds a place of such reverence in the Catholic church. I suppose that's my interpretation of LJ's question. Why, specifically do we need Mary to pray for us as opposed to Pastor Jim or Joe Bob, or a prayer warrior like my friend Miss Kay....or whoever?
> 
> I think the issue is that it "appears" as though her prayers for us are, somehow, more readily heard by God. And do we ask any other dead people to pray for us?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> But I don't consider her to be the biological mother of Christ.  Do you guys?




Um, how else would one come to life?
If he was not born via normal human birthing, then it was all a fraud beginning at the point of the three wise men paying a visit and giving gifts.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> I do have another question.
> 
> Do you consider Christ to be a Davidic King?



Unless this is a trick question (I fall for them all the time..), yes He did come from the line of David who was a King

Does it take a Queen to bear a King?


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 26, 2010)

Swamp Runner said:


> Does it take a Queen to bear a King?



Ask Solomon 

Oh..and yes, I'd agree with your first part too.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

I am going to ask questions rather then come and out say stuff, because sometimes questions can be better answers. They can help get someone to a point a little easier. I am not trying to be derogatory or condescending. I have professors who do the same thing and it helps me to see their point. I may not agree with them, but I can at least understand what they are telling me or what they are trying to get me to understand.

Again I may not agree with them, but I can see their point.




Swamp Runner said:


> Unless this is a trick question (I fall for them all the time..), yes He did come from the line of David who was a King



So does it makes more sense for Christ to set up His Kingdom like a Davidic Kingdom or for the Davidic Kingdoms to be set up like Christ’s Kingdom? 




Swamp Runner said:


> Does it take a Queen to bear a King?


 
That is a good question…


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> So does it makes more sense for Christ to set up His Kingdom like a Davidic Kingdom or for the Davidic Kingdoms to be set up like Christ’s Kingdom?



Can you clarify as to the difference?

I think the Jews were looking for a Davidic Kingdom (rule the world) initially and rejected Christ because of that.

I believe Christ will set up his Kingdom in the future.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Can you clarify as to the difference?


 
The difference would be 

Christ would follow the pattern set up by the Davidic Kingdoms 

or

The Davidic Kingdoms followed the pattern set forth by God


Maybe the better question is would God have the Davidic Kingdom patterned after something different, then what He would have in Heaven?


rjcruiser said:


> I think the Jews were looking for a Davidic Kingdom (rule the world) initially and rejected Christ because of that.


 
I think you are right maybe they were just looking in the wrong place, like here on Earth.



rjcruiser said:


> I believe Christ will set up his Kingdom in the future.


 
In the future here on Earth but He does have a Kingdom in Heaven


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 26, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Um, how else would one come to life?
> If he was not born via normal human birthing, then it was all a fraud beginning at the point of the three wise men paying a visit and giving gifts.



Biological in the sense of "was half of her genetic code in his DNA"....not in the sense of whether he developed in her womb and was birthed.

I have good friends who just gave birth to a baby that was conceived by two other people's sperm and egg and then implanted in her uterus.  It does not make her any less that child's mother.....but she is not part of that child's genetic make up.  That is my point.

I'm not saying I have the answer.  I find it hard to grasp that God used half of her DNA to develop the one who was to be the Christ.  But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Honestly, I haven't thought about it much before.  Just curious what others thought.

So, if she WAS part of his genetic code.....did God implant the other half in the egg or did he somehow (chuckle) send a divine sperm to make the journey?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Biological in the sense of "was half of her genetic code in his DNA"....not in the sense of whether he developed in her womb and was birthed.
> 
> I have good friends who just gave birth to a baby that was conceived by two other people's sperm and egg and then implanted in her uterus. It does not make her any less that child's mother.....but she is not part of that child's genetic make up. That is my point.
> 
> ...


 
Without getting too biologically graphic, that is not entirely true. The mothers blood (dna) is a part of that childs makeup and subsequently its dna..


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> So, if she WAS part of his genetic code.....did God implant the other half in the egg or did he somehow (chuckle) send a divine sperm to make the journey?


 
Reminds me of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 26, 2010)

> Without getting too biologically graphic, that is not entirely true. The mothers blood (dna) is a part of that childs makeup and subsequently its dna..



OK smart guy....you see what I'm getting at.

BTW....I was curious about your claim.  I'd like to hear the exact biology of it.  I'm not buyin' right now.  From what I can tell from the all knowing source of the internet, a "gestational surrogate" is in no way genetically related to the child she carries.

I just did a quick search on it and got several sites that said the same thing.  Just curious where your info is from on that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Reminds me of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch



Three is the number that thou shalt count....and the number of the counting, shall be three.

Thou shalt not count to two, neither shall thou count to four.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Reminds me of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch



Thou shalt count to _three_.

Two, thou shalt not count, unless thou proceedeth on to three.

And four is right out!


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 26, 2010)

(The question was is she the mother of God)


Is she the Mother Of God and can Interceed for Humans , or is that against the verse that says, "there is only one mediator between God and Men Christ The Man "??

Jesus, Himself called her mother, God himself choose her to bare his son because He found favor in her. So yes she was the mother of Jesus.

Is she a Mediator, between God and Man? 

In my opinion and the way I understand the scripture, I would have to say no. Christ is the only mediator between man and God. 

I know that there are some on here that disagree with that but thats ok. I wouldn't argue with them over it but I would privately discuss it. It would be fruitless to try to change their minds and vice versa, on this thread.


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 26, 2010)

Man..... what a Wabbat trail this turned into. Unless I'm mistaken the question was answered. And Yes Dom we are to pray as intercessors for others.

Now for the DNA part.. Jesus had to have human DNA or he wasn't human. Where did the other half come from ???? Only God knows. I can't explain it but I know that's what scripture says......Next question please......... RW


----------



## gtparts (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> As The Prayer says, is Mary the Mother Of God ?
> 
> The Hail Mary (sometimes called the "Angelical salutation", sometimes, from the first words in its Latin form, the "Ave Maria") is the most familiar of all the prayers used by the Universal Church in honour of our Blessed Lady.
> 
> ...



I rather suspect the rub is in the portion that reads :

 Most rightly", says the Catechism, "has the Holy Church of God a"dded to this thanksgiving, petition also and e invocation of the most holy Mother of God, thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtain for us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end." Catholicencyclopedia.com

Now, I am interested in the phrase "in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners...".

Is it entirely scriptural that one can only be reconciled to God by the blood of Christ?  And if so, why include reconciliation through Mary as an option?

I have no issue with the matter of intercessory prayer, but I find it strange to consider an effort at being reconciled to God not being handle on a one-to-one basis. 

Further, if and once we are reconciled to God, we have no further need to make that petition....... unless of course, we might be able to lose that reconciliation, in which case we would necessarily have to crucify  Christ anew. 

Perhaps it is that I see reconciliation as the direct result of receiving salvation through faith in Christ and others consider reconciliation as being in or out of fellowship with God. 

Is it just semantics?? Differing definitions or understandings of what the word _reconciled_ means? Is Mary's intercession for our reconciliation necessary? And, if not, why include that portion that is not necessary?


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 26, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> Man..... what a Wabbat trail this turned into. Unless I'm mistaken the question was answered. And Yes Dom we are to pray as intercessors for others.
> 
> Now for the DNA part.. Jesus had to have human DNA or he wasn't human. Where did the other half come from ???? Only God knows. I can't explain it but I know that's what scripture says......Next question please......... RW




So, then....God is not all-powerful?  Come on.  Of course he could have made him human and not used her DNA.  How did he make Adam?  Eve?


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Randy is correct.
> 
> So why ask? Why ask your pastor to pray for you? Why ask Mary to pray for you? Why ask anyone to pray for you? Does it do any good to have someone else pray for you or for your intentions?
> 
> ...



I would never think to ask Paul, or Peter or John to pray for me...matter of fact I can say I don't believe I have ever felt an unction from the spirit to do anything but speak of them...not to them.

There is a Mary above, holy, pure and joyful in the presence of her God.

There is a religious spirit that would have some believe she is something else.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> I would never think to ask Paul, or Peter or John to pray for me...matter of fact I can say I don't believe I have ever felt an unction from the spirit to do anything but speak of them...not to them.


 
Do you seek to make others feel less, if they choose to ask for prayers?



Israel said:


> There is a Mary above, holy, pure and joyful in the presence of her God.


 

She is as you say, and she is willing to ask on behalf of the servants, something of her Son.





Israel said:


> There is a religious spirit that would have some believe she is something else.


 
I believe she is no more then the Mother of my King


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2010)

Before Abraham was, I am.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 26, 2010)

> I believe she is no more then the Mother of my King



and so somehow her prayers hold a more special place in his ear than the rest of us?

I mean, I see how you might think that from a human perspective.  But I don't see where that comes from biblically.  Is it more just religious tradition or is there actually biblical justitifcation for that belief (not bashing....questioning)?


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2010)

Superstitions are deadly to the soul.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 26, 2010)

Luke 1:42

"Blessed art thou among women and _blessed is the fruit of thy womb"_

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Love that prayer. Always have, always will.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> and so somehow her prayers hold a more special place in his ear than the rest of us?
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, I see how you might think that from a human perspective. But I don't see where that comes from biblically. Is it more just religious tradition or is there actually biblical justitifcation for that belief (not bashing....questioning)?





At whose behest did Christ perform His first miracle? 

Who was the highest-ranking woman in the royal court of the Davidic kings?


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> and so somehow her prayers hold a more special place in his ear than the rest of us?
> 
> I mean, I see how you might think that from a human perspective.  But I don't see where that comes from biblically.  Is it more just religious tradition or is there actually biblical justitifcation for that belief (not bashing....questioning)?



I don't know about you, but when my mama asks me to do something, I jump right to it.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> Superstitions are deadly to the soul.



The Bible is full of them.  Some are original, others are borrowed from earlier belief systems and oral traditions.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> Superstitions are deadly to the soul.


 
While your concern for my soul is sweet, you may want to tend to your own.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Is it more just religious tradition or is there actually biblical justitifcation for that belief (not bashing....questioning)?



So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thess 2:15


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> While your concern for my soul is sweet, you may want to tend to your own.



I don't know that I made a reference to yours.
But no lie is of the truth.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> I don't know that I made a reference to yours.
> But no lie is of the truth.


 
Coy not just the misspelling of a Japanese fish's name...


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2010)

Since you appear to want to draw me in to what was never intended as a plea for your soul, now with accusations of my coyness relative to things about which you know nothing, so be it.

If I speak less than plainly, God be the judge.
As the name of Jesus is blasphemed amongst the heathen for all the efforts of demons to diminish, distort and despoil by the darkness of their religious bondage, Jesus remains above all.
He will not be put in service of crafty men who use his name to abuse and control others, nor does he long suffer the use of the names of his faithful ones, be they Mary, John, Peter, Paul, to do likewise.
Babylon is a haunt for every unclean spirit, every lie that has presented itself as salvation and only brought further bondage.
Rejoice over her, for great is her destruction.
She is wed to the liar from the beginning.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

earl said:


> The Catholic bashing comes about via your last question. None of the prior writings and prayers say that Mary can interceed for humans in the sense of giving them salvation. Dom has given the correct answer. It is odd that you ask an obviously  loaded question and have the ones who can give the correct answer on ignore. That shows how interested you are in having an intelligent discussion.
> Attack on ,oh rabbi ,reverend, pastor , founder of 300 + churches,missionary extrodinaire.



What part of the Encyclopedia text don't you understand ?
"thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtain for us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end." Catholicencyclopedia.com
O strife causer and advocate of everything anti Christian" LOL


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> Since you appear to want to draw me in to what was never intended as a plea for your soul, now with accusations of my coyness relative to things about which you know nothing, so be it.
> 
> If I speak less than plainly, God be the judge.
> As the name of Jesus is blasphemed amongst the heathen for all the efforts of demons to diminish, distort and despoil by the darkness of their religious bondage, Jesus remains above all.
> ...



3 Amens to that !


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> A furth clarification question I suppose....
> 
> 
> Yes, Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the mother of Jesus....who is God.  I don't think I have an issue there.
> ...



Very Good , I also like to know why if she is dead and the bible teaches the dead are not concerned with the every day hazels of this life, why is she asked to answer or mediate prayers of the living ?
Isn't that bordering on the religion of spiritism ?
Speaking to dead is forbidden in The Bible as well.
Yes I believe her to be the biological Mother of Yeshua, her blood supported him in the womb, and for that she desrves a high honor , but intercessor ?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> Since you appear to want to draw me in to what was never intended as a plea for your soul, now with accusations of my coyness relative to things about which you know nothing, so be it.


 
Ahhh the wounded pride



Israel said:


> If I speak less than plainly, God be the judge.


 
Good plan




Israel said:


> As the name of Jesus is blasphemed amongst the heathen for all the efforts of demons to diminish, distort and despoil by the darkness of their religious bondage, Jesus remains above all.
> He will not be put in service of crafty men who use his name to abuse and control others, nor does he long suffer the use of the names of his faithful ones, be they Mary, John, Peter, Paul, to do likewise.
> Babylon is a haunt for every unclean spirit, every lie that has presented itself as salvation and only brought further bondage.
> Rejoice over her, for great is her destruction.
> She is wed to the liar from the beginning.


 
Feel better

Would you like me to parse this out for folks?

Or do you think they get that you are talking about the Catholic Church and Catholics?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> 3 Amens to that !


 
You can't even read my post but you understand what he is says when he responds to me.


----------



## earl (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> What part of the Encyclopedia text don't you understand ?
> "thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtain for us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end." Catholicencyclopedia.com
> O strife causer and advocate of everything anti Christian" LOL





It's the same as asking for others prayers for your benifit. 

I think an old R&R song fits your style. Twist and Shout .


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Very Good , I also like to know why if she is dead and the bible teaches the dead are not concerned with the every day hazels of this life, why is she asked to answer or mediate prayers of the living ?
> Isn't that bordering on the religion of spiritism ?
> Speaking to dead is forbidden in The Bible as well.
> Yes I believe her to be the biological Mother of Yeshua, her blood supported him in the womb, and for that she desrves a high honor , but intercessor ?


 
Those who are with Christ in Heaven are dead?

What about all that stuff He talked about being resurrection and the life?

I guess dead is dead.


----------



## earl (Apr 26, 2010)

I really hate to do this but .... No I don't.
I googled Catholicencyclopedia.com and there is no such thing.

LJ , you have to quit giving these easy as pie pitches. Some one is gonna hit them out of the park every time.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

earl said:


> I really hate to do this but .... No I don't.
> I googled Catholicencyclopedia.com and there is no such thing.
> 
> LJ , you have to quit giving these easy as pie pitches. Some one is gonna hit them out of the park every time.


 
I hate to do this even more but I will defend him...

I noticed all the misspellings in the orginal and wondered. He retyped it from catholicencyclopedia.net not .com.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

earl said:


> I really hate to do this but .... No I don't.
> I googled Catholicencyclopedia.com and there is no such thing.
> 
> LJ , you have to quit giving these easy as pie pitches. Some one is gonna hit them out of the park every time.



Are you sure ?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm

"They say when a man gets old, the first thing to go are his eyes, the second to go are the skins which stretches to the floor"Jewish Wisdom.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Might behoove one to correctly identify one's sources.
I'd expect a college level instructor to be much more accurate with such footnoting and recognition.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Might behoove one to correctly identify one's sources.
> I'd expect a college level instructor to be much more accurate with such footnoting and recognition.



Was that condescending ?
Don't whine when I use the same method back.
APA citation. Thurston, H. (1910). Hail Mary. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm


----------



## earl (Apr 26, 2010)

Dominic said:


> I hate to do this even more but I will defend him...
> 
> I noticed all the misspellings in the orginal and wondered. He retyped it from catholicencyclopedia.net not .com.



I know about the .net. I just think that before you go on the attack ,you should have all your ducks in a row. The fact that he incorrectly identified his source is just another indication of his zeal to offend overcoming accuracy. There is no excuse for sloppiness in this case.


----------



## earl (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Are you sure ?
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm
> 
> "They say when a man gets old, the first thing to go are his eyes, the second to go are the skins which stretches to the floor"Jewish Wisdom.





See my posted reply to Dom's. Your Jewish Wisdom have any thing to say about inaccuracy and sloppiness ? Many a slip  between the cup and the lip perhaps ?
Is there a reason you are now giving a different source than the one in the OP ? Or is memory the first thing to go ?


----------



## formula1 (Apr 26, 2010)

*Re:*

In all honesty It can't be any clearer than this:

1 Timothy 2
1First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 
2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 

Show me scripturally and convincingly that there is any other mediator in heaven or on earth making intercession on our behalf other than Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, I do have much respect for my Catholic brothers (and sisters).  I have plenty of them I am friends with.  I do not wish to offend you here, so I will just say that I will pray in the name of Christ that God will show you the truth on this matter.  I wish no other thing for you than that you know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent, personally, fully, and intimately. Salvation comes from nowhere else!  God Bless!


----------



## earl (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Was that condescending ?
> Don't whine when I use the same method back.
> APA citation. Thurston, H. (1910). Hail Mary. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm



You still can't get it right even after Dom gave you the correct website in his post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All the accusations you have made about others having some sort of mental problem have evidently come home to roost with you.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 26, 2010)

Back to the topic. It was going so good earlier.


----------



## christianhunter (Apr 26, 2010)

Mary being conceived by THE HOLY SPIRIT,and JESUS being 100% man,and 100% GOD.She is the mother of GOD,in the flesh.Which without a play on words,is the mother of GOD.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Was that condescending ?



By me?  Not at all.
I was purely being observant.  I have been instructed well on resource documentation.
It is a prerequisite to accurate presentation.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 26, 2010)

formula1 said:


> In all honesty It can't be any clearer than this:
> 
> 1 Timothy 2
> 1First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
> ...


 
I would point back to the beginning of the verse you posted. Noted that St. Paul ask "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people". He instructs us to perform these; he makes that distinction between mediation and intercessory prayer. He even says that this type of prayer is good in the sight of the Lord.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> By me?  Not at all.
> I was purely being observant.  I have been instructed well on resource documentation.
> It is a prerequisite to accurate presentation.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Made the preacher laugh again!

This time, as a prize, I'll take the stuffed skunk for the gameroom.
The stuffed turkey looks great on top of the piano!


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 26, 2010)

earl said:


> You still can't get it right even after Dom gave you the correct website in his post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All the accusations you have made about others having some sort of mental problem have evidently come home to roost with you.



Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and type in Ave Maria and see where it leads you.


----------



## Big7 (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Very Good , I also like to know why if she is dead and the bible teaches the dead are not concerned with the every day hazels of this life, why is she asked to answer or mediate prayers of the living ?
> Isn't that bordering on the religion of spiritism ?
> Speaking to dead is forbidden in The Bible as well.
> Yes I believe her to be the biological Mother of Yeshua, her blood supported him in the womb, and for that she desrves a high honor , but intercessor ?



Yes, Intercessor.



Dominic said:


> You can't even read my post but you understand what he is says when he responds to me.



He can't even understand his own post'.



Dominic said:


> Those who are with Christ in Heaven are dead?
> 
> What about all that stuff He talked about being resurrection and the life?
> 
> I guess dead is dead.



Maybe this will be of help??

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family. ** Dead meaning those in He!!

Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven. 

1 Cor. 4:9 – because we can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth. 

1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 - now we see in a mirror dimly, but in heaven we see face to face. The saints are more alive than we are! 

Heb. 12:1: we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses. The “cloud of witnesses” refers to the saints who are not only watching us from above but cheering us on in our race to heaven. 

Matt. 27:52; Eph. 2:19; 3:18; Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:10 - in these verses, we also see that "saints" also refer to those in heaven who united with us.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 26, 2010)

christianhunter said:


> Mary being conceived by THE HOLY SPIRIT,and JESUS being 100% man,and 100% GOD.She is the mother of GOD,in the flesh.Which without a play on words,is the mother of GOD.




An enormous play on words.


----------



## christianhunter (Apr 26, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> An enormous play on words.



GOD in the Flesh,Brother.Which is still the mother of GOD,not GOD in eternity past.GOD incarnate,our LORD and Savior,JESUS.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 26, 2010)

Veneration and Intercessory Prayer, a deeper explination.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 26, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> ....
> 
> Is she the Mother Of God and can Interceed for Humans , or is that against the verse that says, "there is only one mediator between God and Men Christ The Man "??



1) Depends.  Is Jesus God?
2) Intercession: Guess we should close down the Spiritual Support and Encouragement since there is only one mediator between God and men.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 26, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Veneration and Intercessory Prayer, a deeper explination.
> 
> http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html



There are some good Bible verses in that link I would like for people to explain if people are just "dead."  Seems to contradict that notion...


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 26, 2010)

Luke 1:26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 
27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 
28And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." 
29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 
30The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 
31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 
32"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 
33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." 
34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" 
35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2010)

The nature of religious spirits/demons is to present something in the likeness of the truth but with a fatal lie at heart.
Therefore Paul was very careful to warn against receiving another gospel by the preaching of another strange Jesus.
The novice hears the name Jesus and assumes all speak of the same Lord. And so, by cunning and craftiness, men are able to draw them in to their own religious bondage and mold their perceptions of Jesus to those from beneath. Or men are spoon fed this distortion from their birth and come to believe that one with whom they have never had any spiritual revelation is the Lord. 
This is not exclusive to any religious persuasion...
Our struggle as believers is always to not be moved by what our eyes see, nor our ears hear, but only by revelation of the Holy Spirit.
A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.
Which is why we are always told to hold fast to that which we know is the truth of Jesus, as there is an abundance of forces always trying to rip it away, distort, confuse, and otherwise lead you away from your first love.

It is no different with any other saint named. Some would have you believe Paul resides perfectly content to have "churches" named after him, and congregations dedicated and consecrated to his name...this is done under the guise of "honoring him" or as scripture would be twisted to endorse..."give honor to whom honor is due..."
This is not so, and that Paul, that spirit that decieves men, blinds them as to what true worship is...make a mockery of the name, and by extension, the name of Christ...
So it is with our sister Mary.
We feel a reluctance to address these things...having always to qualify our repsonses...with "but yes...Mary is blessed..." or whatever...and indeed she is. 
But she is not the Mary spoken of by the religious spirits...
If you understand that there are two mountains, two Jerusalems, then you can understand that there is always something gendering to bondage that is presented as the real...but which is only a failed copy of the true.

Our sister Mary...not our mother Mary (which is another spirit) rejoices in the salvation of her God through Jesus Christ.

Where she knows flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom of God...and that which is born of the flesh, is flesh...while that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.

There is no profit in knowing Jesus after the flesh, the carpenter's son, the son of Mary who preached around Galillee.

There is the wedding feast...and there is the great supper of God...to which are you being summoned?
And therefore, through you, to which are others being summoned?

The Jerusalem which is from above, which is the mother of us all, is free.

Pay no heed to the mother from beneath.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Apr 27, 2010)

Sparky1 said:


> Back to the topic. It was going so good earlier.



Yeah, That is what I thought.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

Dominic; said:
			
		

> Those who are with Christ in Heaven are dead?
> 
> What about all that stuff He talked about being resurrection and the life?
> 
> I guess dead is dead.



Perhaps I can rephrase then. Do you pray to anyone else who is with Christ?  Do you ask anyone else who has passed from this earth to intercede on your behalf?

Is there a reason he wouldn't just hear your plea directly?  His will will be done in any case, correct?  Can she somehow change his mind anymore than you or I can?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 27, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Perhaps I can rephrase then. Do you pray to anyone else who is with Christ? Do you ask anyone else who has passed from this earth to intercede on your behalf?
> 
> Is there a reason he wouldn't just hear your plea directly? His will will be done in any case, correct? Can she somehow change his mind anymore than you or I can?


 
Yes I do, I ask all the Saints in Heaven


No reason at all. I do pray directly to Him also.

Yes His will. In fact my prayers are for just His will and that I am able to accept it.

A Mother will always have her Son's ear.

What is the point of prayer?


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Yes I do, I ask all the Saints in Heaven
> 
> 
> No reason at all. I do pray directly to Him also.
> ...



Duh....my bad.  Didn't think about the saints....which leads me to more questions.  But they are probably better for another thread.



> No reason at all.



Though I'm honestly not convinced that you're being totally honest about this one.  You even alluded to it with this:



> A Mother will always have her Son's ear.



My feeling is that the Catholic faith does think that somehow Mary (and the saints) have more influence or have a more "direct" line if you will.  

It's not just "no particular reason", right?

But I continue to digress....this isn't really what the thread is supposed to be about.


----------



## 1kruger (Apr 27, 2010)

In catholisim there are only three thrones  in the kingdom of heaven 
God = God the Father (top center)
Jesus = God the son (lower right)
Holy spirit  (lower left)
So is mary the mother of God  "NO" she is the  mother of God the Son.
Say the prayer out loud and listen to what you read :
Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, It is a litteral  question and statement.
Full of grace the lord is with thee, She and Jesus shared the same blood  so she is full of grace and his spirit. The second line is simple She was chosen out of all the women on earth to carry and raise Jesus the son of God the Father. So she was directly blessed by God the father and her womb was also blessed to accept his son. Pray for our sins, we are asking her to pray for us the same way we ask others to pray for our sick and dying.
                             Simple question simple answer.
Jesus is Lord of the jews and his teachings are called chistianity.
Meanings and discriptions are lost in translation, words are dropped in translation so it may be translated easyer. many languages lack words  to discribe items and objects of what other languages  use and have in their vocabulary ( In the bible it has been discussed openly "flaming Chariot" Mans discription of a rocket or ship, this is the only words in that language to discribe what was seen,something carring men in the sky and flaming, chariots carried men on earth SO flaming chariot )  so a lot is and can be lost in translation. One could be Mary mother of GOD. Because of the catholic beliefs and los of words in translation they dropped the son and shortened it to just God to be all encompassing. The indians had no native word for "Jesus"
Just as the indian  code talkers of the WWII, their language had no words for tank,plane,gun,  ship becuase these things were not part of their world when their langauge was developed  so they used  common words and changed the meaning of it from their language to discribe  these things but only after agreeing on the words to be used. Such as turtle for tank and so forth So now as in many langauges there are more than one meaning of a word in their langauge. This is a question of faith IMHO, If you believe you can ask others can pray for you and your soul in sickness and death then you believe you can ask Mary to pray for you and yours  too. Simple and clear.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 27, 2010)

This is just my opinion based on a lifetime of Catholicism:

It is hard for a non-Catholic to understand our traditions because most of your denominations are not old enough to have a base in what the early Christians believed and were taught by the Disciples, AND, most were founded with a base of total hatred towards Catholicism. Not saying this is a bad thing, but a schism is a schism. 

ANYTHING remotely Catholic or ANYTHING that did not fit the Reformer's ideas was quickly bashed and Scripture was twisted or in some cases, changed to agree with these reformist ideas. It didn't matter if there was other scripture that supported it or if it was preceeded by 1500 years of Sacred Tradition that Scripture is crystal clear about holding fast to. 

Obviously the Early Christians felt and were taught that Mary was much more than just another Christian. Even in Jesus' final hour, he told John, "Behold, your Mother." John was not even related to Mary in any way. Now, that might be a stretch but for some reason, I don't know why, Mary was revered by the Early Christians. 

I do know that there is always a special bond between a mother and her son, especially in Jewish families. (Yeah...Lowjack isn't the only person here with a Jewish heritage.) Prayer is very powerful and I am always asking my mom to pray for me. I will also ask Jesus' mom to pray for me. For 2000 years, my faith has seen the importance of revering Mary because that is what has been taught to us by the men who walked with our savior.


----------



## Big7 (Apr 27, 2010)

Good Post DS.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

DS,

I gotta say, that sounds like the standard defense that has been posted over and over in here.

Seems an aweful lot like talking points if you ask me.

"you wouldn't understand because the guys that founded your branch hated everything about us so they taught you to hate us."

I'm not operating under what my denomination tells me about Catholocism, because they don't actually tell me anything.  We don't talk about it.

I'm asking questions because I'm curious and because many of the things that you guys are talking about don't seem to have solid biblical support...from my reading of....not from Martin Luther's or anyone else's.  

I've not been taught to hate your religion.  I just don't understand why you believe some of the things you believe.  They don't make biblical sense to me.  That is all.  It's got nothing to do with my denomination (actually, I'm not sure I have one at this point) tells me about Catholicism.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

> Obviously the Early Christians felt and were taught that Mary was much more than just another Christian. Even in Jesus' final hour, he told John, "Behold, your Mother." John was not even related to Mary in any way. Now, that might be a stretch but for some reason, I don't know why, Mary was revered by the Early Christians.



Yes....that is a BIG stretch IMO.




> I do know that there is always a special bond between a mother and her son, especially in Jewish families. (Yeah...Lowjack isn't the only person here with a Jewish heritage.) Prayer is very powerful and I am always asking my mom to pray for me. I will also ask Jesus' mom to pray for me.



What about his/your dad?  I have a very strong bond with my dad (even moreso than with my mom).  Why is Joseph not included in the interaction?  Angels appeared to him as well.  See where I'm going?


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 27, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Veneration and Intercessory Prayer, a deeper explination.
> 
> http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html





dawg2 said:


> There are some good Bible verses in that link I would like for people to explain if people are just "dead."  Seems to contradict that notion...





Huntinfool said:


> DS,
> 
> I gotta say, that sounds like the standard defense that has been posted over and over in here.
> 
> ...



Did you look at the link WTM45 posted?  I am still waiting for someone to explain them.  They do support what is being said.


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 27, 2010)

The church that I am a member of was founded in ad 33 on the day of pentecost. It is founded on the love of God and Jesus as the cornerstone of the church.

On the cross Jesus did say to; John behold your mother, the way I translate that, is to mean, Jesus was handing hser over to John to care for as his own mother.

I know what the Catholic believes about Mary but I know very little more, but like I said before, thats ok, its not for me to condemn aniyone for what they believe, I must be firm in what I believe though, this forum has little chance of changing anyone's mind or converting them to another belief.

The only point I want to make is, I feel that we have to live togather, in some sort of unity, in love, maybe we can learn from one another, but in the end someone is going to be wrong, and that is dangerous, I pray God will show me the right way. 

In my bible and I assume it is the same as anyone else's on here, I do not see anywhere that it says I should pray through Mary for my sins to be forgiven. 

Show me please, if it is there I will do it without hesitation. The church I am a member of was founded by Christ and is as old as any represented here. With all due respect.

God bless you
owt


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> I've not been taught to hate your religion.  I just don't understand why you believe some of the things you believe.  They don't make biblical sense to me.  That is all.  It's got nothing to do with my denomination (actually, I'm not sure I have one at this point) tells me about Catholicism.



Im in the same boat with ya bud. I dont hate Catholics, I have met dawg and he is as fine a person as you will find. But I have never understood the catholic religion, mainly because I have never been taught it. So I dont really or should I say, I cant really debate this argument with them. 

For the original question, yes I believe 100% that Mary was the Mother of Jesus. But I am taught in my Bible, that Jesus would make intercession for us to the Father. I believe in intercessory prayer through others, but they are alive. I dont see the 2 situations the same ( Mary making intercession and a live person making intercession ) Simply because I can ask dawg to pray for me on this forum, but I cant ask Mary, because she is dead. 

Thats just my thoughts on what I have been taught and believe.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> Did you look at the link WTM45 posted?  I am still waiting for someone to explain them.  They do support what is being said.



I did not.  I'll got back and look at it.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> Did you look at the link WTM45 posted?  I am still waiting for someone to explain them.  They do support what is being said.



I copied this from there, this lines up with what I believe, that others can make intercessory prayer for you. Jesus is still the mediator, no one can take that roll, even though we can pray in intercession. Theres a difference in intercession and mediation. But how and where does it support praying to Mary?

<<<<II. God Desires and Responds to Our Subordinate Mediation / Intercessory Prayer
1 Tim 2:1-2 - because Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), many Protestants deny the Catholic belief that the saints on earth and in heaven can mediate on our behalf. But before Paul's teaching about Jesus as the "one mediator," Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people. Paul is thus appealing for mediation from others besides Christ, the one mediator. Why?>>>>


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

Let me add, regardless if a saint in heaven can or can not make intercession for me, the problem is, I cant ask that saint to pray for me. Remember the story of the rich man and Lazerath? (look over my spelling)The rich man could look up into heaven and beg for water, but there was a great gulf in between. Lazerath couldnt look down.


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 27, 2010)

thedeacon said:


> The church that I am a member of was founded in ad 33 on the day of pentecost. It is founded on the love of God and Jesus as the cornerstone of the church.
> 
> On the cross Jesus did say to; John behold your mother, the way I translate that, is to mean, Jesus was handing hser over to John to care for as his own mother.
> 
> ...



If I may let me add to my own post; I can't debate the catholic people here about there religious beliefs because I have not studied them. That would be dumb.

Most of the time threads like this are posted not for positive purposes but to promote controversy, something we should avoid and replace it with civil discussion.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 27, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> DS,
> 
> I gotta say, that sounds like the standard defense that has been posted over and over in here.
> 
> ...



Again, it all goes back to Sola Scriptura. I can't understand why SS devotees can't seem to get it that there is more to Christianity than is found in the Bible. To each his own. I absolutely do not feel that without Marian Devotion you cannot enter into the Kingdom, I just feel that without Marian Devotion you are missing the fullness of what Christianity has to offer.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> Again, it all goes back to Sola Scriptura. I can't understand why SS devotees can't seem to get it that there is more to Christianity than is found in the Bible. To each his own. I absolutely do not feel that without Marian Devotion you cannot enter into the Kingdom, I just feel that without Marian Devotion you are missing the fullness of what Christianity has to offer.



AH!!!!  Indeed!  Now I think we've gotten to the "rub".  You are correct.  

I'll have to do some thinking on this.  First question that comes to mind, though, is whether you agree that traditions need also to (at a minimum) agree with the Bible.  Do they not?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Theres a difference in intercession and mediation.





Spotlite said:


> Let me add, regardless if a saint in heaven can or can not make intercession for me, the problem is, I cant ask that saint to pray for me. Remember the story of the rich man and Lazerath? (look over my spelling)The rich man could look up into heaven and beg for water, but there was a great gulf in between. Lazerath couldnt look down.



One of you Catholics take a stab at this. I guess from a non Catholic view, for us, praying to Mary, would be like praying to any other passed loved one that has gone on before us. I just dont see or get it.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 27, 2010)

christianhunter said:


> Mary being conceived by THE HOLY SPIRIT,and JESUS being 100% man,and 100% GOD.She is the mother of GOD,in the flesh.Which without a play on words,is the mother of GOD.



A Human Mother is never the Mother of The Spirit of the child.
The Word says, "Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return to God who gave it."

 Being that the Spirit of Yeshua was God then God has no earthly Mother, The Body of Yeshua Was nurtured by Mariameh.

Every spirit on earth was fathered by God. Isn't that amazing ?


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 27, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> A Human Mother is never the Mother of The Spirit of the child.
> The Word says, "Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return to God who gave it."
> 
> Being that the Spirit of Yeshua was God then God has no earthly Mother, The Body of Yeshua Was nurtured by Mariameh.
> ...




Yes it is.  And it makes perfect sense to me.
A great way of explaining it!


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> Again, it all goes back to Sola Scriptura. I can't understand why SS devotees can't seem to get it that there is more to Christianity than is found in the Bible.



You have a warped view of SS.  As a protestant who believes in SS, I also see the importance of the ECFs and their writings.  However, I see them for what they are...writings by uninspired man.  Just like the writings of Dr. MacArthur and other "Modern Church Fathers," they are writings by uninspired men.  Much can be learned from them, but they are not on the same level as Scripture.

Scripture is like the Aces in the deck...it trumps all other cards.  It is the ultimate authority.



Huntinfool said:


> First question that comes to mind, though, is whether you agree that traditions need also to (at a minimum) agree with the Bible.  Do they not?




Great question


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2010)

I believe the Bible teaches that Mary is the mother of God incarnate, Jesus the Christ.

I have a question for the Roman Catholics; it is not meant for anyone to feel the need to defend their position but to explain it in terms that I can understand.  Some of the philosophers on this forum write in metaphors, imagery, and descriptions that I sometimes fail to connect.

I have been asked for and have asked others for intercessory prayer, however, I have asked this directly to a living person not someone who has passed from this realm.   I do not believe that the Bible teaches that anyone other than God is omnipresent.  

Hence the question:  If I am asking Mary for intercession on my behalf at 10:30 this evening and 1 million other people around the world are asking for the same thing at the same time, who can Mary hear and intercede for?


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

Wow....that's a good question too!  I would assume that, based on DS's answer, it's part of tradition.

Guess it depends on the answer to whether tradition is beholden to the Bible or not.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 27, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Wow....that's a good question too!  I would assume that, based on DS's answer, it's part of tradition.
> 
> Guess it depends on the answer to whether tradition is beholden to the Bible or not.



That has always being my question To The RCC


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

Mine to, somewhat. But mostly about prayer to a person that has passed away. Just never have gotten an answer


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Mine to, somewhat. But mostly about prayer to a person that has passed away. Just never have gotten an answer



I am Anglican so I hold many of the same views and traditions of the “Pre-Reformation” Church.
One of those being that death of this temple in which I live is not the end of life, I believe that those in the presence of God are as much a part of His church as I am and just, if not more alive than I am.


I just am not sure that they can hear me.


I believe in the communion of Saints and am part of it every time I join in the Eucharist.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 27, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> AH!!!!  Indeed!  Now I think we've gotten to the "rub".  You are correct.
> 
> I'll have to do some thinking on this.  First question that comes to mind, though, is whether you agree that traditions need also to (at a minimum) agree with the Bible.  Do they not?



I don't think they need to agree with Scripture so long as they don't conflict with Scripture. However, sometimes Scripture conflicts with Scripture so at that point, Catholics have the Magesterium who can, with the aide of the Holy Spirit, the writings of early Christians and Sacred Tradition, interpret the correct teaching. Scripture says in John 21:25 that the world could not hold the books if everything Christ taught were written down. In 3 John 13-14 he tells us that he would rather TELL what Christ did rather than write it down. 2 Thess 2:15 says to stand firm and hold to the traditions that were taught _either by word of mouth or by letter._ So, I feel and the Catholic Church feels that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture and scripture seems to support that fact.



Spotlite said:


> One of you Catholics take a stab at this. I guess from a non Catholic view, for us, praying to Mary, would be like praying to any other passed loved one that has gone on before us. I just dont see or get it.



I think that there is Scripture quoted in some above posts that tell us that saints who have died on Earth are alive in Heaven.



rjcruiser said:


> You have a warped view of SS.  As a protestant who believes in SS, I also see the importance of the ECFs and their writings.  However, I see them for what they are...writings by uninspired man.  Just like the writings of Dr. MacArthur and other "Modern Church Fathers," they are writings by uninspired men.  Much can be learned from them, but they are not on the same level as Scripture.
> 
> Scripture is like the Aces in the deck...it trumps all other cards.  It is the ultimate authority.
> 
> ...



We will have to agree to disagree and my disagreement is based on Scripture. You cannot prove SS by Scripture but I can make a great case against it WITH Scripture.



Madman said:


> I believe the Bible teaches that Mary is the mother of God incarnate, Jesus the Christ.
> 
> I have a question for the Roman Catholics; it is not meant for anyone to feel the need to defend their position but to explain it in terms that I can understand.  Some of the philosophers on this forum write in metaphors, imagery, and descriptions that I sometimes fail to connect.
> 
> ...



Good question. I do not have my Catechism with me but I will look it up and see what it has to say about that and get back to you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 27, 2010)

> We will have to agree to disagree and my disagreement is based on Scripture. You cannot prove SS by Scripture but I can make a great case against it WITH Scripture.



I'm not quite sure how rock solid that statement is based on what you posted earlier in this post.  But, you are at least making a decent argument of it I suppose.



> Good question. I do not have my Catechism with me but I will look it up and see what it has to say about that and get back to you.



Fair enough.  I'm interested to hear the answer as well.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> We will have to agree to disagree and my disagreement is based on Scripture. You cannot prove SS by Scripture but I can make a great case against it WITH Scripture.



Really?

II Tim 3:16.

All Scripture is inspired by God.

Rev 22:18-19

Don't add to scripture.


Sounds pretty cut & dry to me.


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2010)

There is no life in religion. Can God set a man free? 

Indeed, only God can.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?
> 
> II Tim 3:16.
> 
> ...



A point to ponder:

What can really be said of this passage?  Paul was not referring to the New Testament as the “Parchments” had not been canonized. In fact some of the Epistles had not even been written, therefore he must have been speaking only of the Old Testament.  So if we strictly follow Paul’s words we must exclude his letter to Timothy because it was not Scripture at the time.

If that be case not only must we exclude tradition and Paul’s letter to Timothy we must also exclude the entire new Testement.

What about oral tradition.  I know of two instances where oral tradition was used as a teaching, you scholars may have more.  In II Tim. Paul speaks of Jambres opposing Moses but I have never found that in the Old Testament and Jude quotes from Enoch the prophet in 14,15.

Maybe it is considerably deeper than Sola scriptura.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Wow....that's a good question too! I would assume that, based on DS's answer, it's part of tradition.
> 
> Guess it depends on the answer to whether tradition is beholden to the Bible or not.


 
NOW we're getting somewhere, not towards the topic of this thread, but towards a vital origin of all anthropological basis for why much of what was written in the Bible, especially about a womans role, was writtin. Middle Eastern culture of the times was, and in many regions still is extremely archaic.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Madman said:


> A point to ponder:
> 
> What can really be said of this passage?  Paul was not referring to the New Testament as the “Parchments” had not been canonized. In fact some of the Epistles had not even been written, therefore he must have been speaking only of the Old Testament.  So if we strictly follow Paul’s words we must exclude his letter to Timothy because it was not Scripture at the time.
> 
> ...




Why do you hold to such an early date for the writing of Revelation?  Could it not have been written last?  I certainly think so.

And as far as your last paragraph, you too have a warped sense of SS.  Nothing wrong with oral tradition and using it as a guide.  But to say it is inspired and on a level playing field with the Scripture is to me, blasphemy.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> I think that there is Scripture quoted in some above posts that tell us that saints who have died on Earth are alive in Heaven.



I dont have an issue with saints who have died on earth and are now alive in heaven. The issue is communicating to them, or praying to them as a mediater, such as praying to Mary. Some folks are confusing intercessorer and mediatior, they are not the same. You can have multiple intercessories, but there is only one mediater.

Right now, I can ask for prayer. I might get 20 folks saying they will pray for me, thats intercessory prayer. But if you die today, I cant communicate to you and ask you to pray for me. In either case, you, Bob nor Mary or any other human can mediate for me dead or alive and certainly cant intercede for me once your dead. 

Thats what I would like to have explained to me, how do you intercede with those that have passed on?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> II Tim 3:16.
> 
> All Scripture is inspired by God.



I'm not a sola scriptura proponent, but I agree completely with this and see no conflict.




rjcruiser said:


> Rev 22:18-19
> 
> Don't add to scripture.



That's not what the verse says.  The complete verse reads:

_I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book._ - emphasis mine.

Obviously, I don't think John believes that changing Revelation is verboten, but changing any other NT book is OK.  But saying "don't add to scripture" ignores scriptures like these:

_Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. _ - 2 Thess 2:15

Here Paul puts oral teaching on the same level as written instruction.  For early Christians, oral teaching was mostly what they received.  Other than the OT, most early churches had little exposure to written scripture.  At best, some of the larger churches might have copies of a gospel or two, and maybe some of Paul's epistles.

_Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written._ - John 21:25

The same John who wrote Revelation says that not everything Jesus said and did were written down.

_In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God._ - Acts 1:1-3

What NT book contains all Jesus' teachings during this forty day period?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Why do you hold to such an early date for the writing of Revelation? Could it not have been written last? I certainly think so.
> 
> And as far as your last paragraph, you too have a warped sense of SS. Nothing wrong with oral tradition and using it as a guide. But to say it is inspired and on a level playing field with the Scripture is to me, blasphemy.


 
Revelations was not written last, in fact one of the books of John was, ergo the arguement in another thread about the validity of books now in the Bible vs. the criteria used to judge the spirituality of those that decided which books should go and which should stay..


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Sparky1 said:


> Revelations was not written last, in fact one of the books of John was, ergo the arguement in another thread about the validity of books now in the Bible vs. the criteria used to judge the spirituality of those that decided which books should go and which should stay..



just because you write it on an internet forum doesn't make it fact.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> just because you write it on an internet forum doesn't make it fact.



I would agree with that as well.

But, Luther did add the German word "allein" (alone) to scripture.  A word NOT originally found in the greek texts of Romans 3:28


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not a sola scriptura proponent, but I agree completely with this and see no conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Acts...and the rest of the NT

And I have no problem with those scriptures...I just hold to the fact that the Bible is 100% complete and 100% accurate.  I know (or believe) that it is the inerrant Word of God.  Therefore, it is the measuring rod for all other things.  If the ECFs teach in line with scripture...  If they don't...  If my church teaches outside the lines of scripture on core doctrines, I'll discuss with the pastor/elders and if it isn't changed, then I'll leave and find a place that does agree with Scripture.

Again, the early church had to use the NT letter's and the writings of the apostles as the measuring rods.  There were false teachers in that time as well.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> I would agree with that as well.
> 
> But, Luther did add the German word "allein" (alone) to scripture.  A word NOT originally found in the greek texts of Romans 3:28





dawg...sometime, we'll have to hang out and drink a beer and smoke a cigar.

You, dom, big7, me and HF.


Anytime you're up in Covington area....we'll do it....can't have a cigar "alone" you know


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Why do you hold to such an early date for the writing of Revelation?  Could it not have been written last?  I certainly think so.
> 
> And as far as your last paragraph, you too have a warped sense of SS.  Nothing wrong with oral tradition and using it as a guide.  But to say it is inspired and on a level playing field with the Scripture is to me, blasphemy.



No one has claimed that oral tradition is inspired; I am saying that Paul gave it enough weight that he used it in his teaching.  

I gave no date for the writing of The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I know it was written in John’s life time, which I believe was before the books of the Bible were canonized. 

As for my “warped” view of Sola Scriptura, I am not sure what the “correct” view is, you can find as many definitions of Sola Scriptura as you find Protestant denominations.

I take it at face value, “the sufficiency of Scripture alone”.  My point is only that if you narrow the scope of your faith to that it is an awkward place to stand.  

If ya’ll wish to discuss Sola Scriptura maybe another thread needs to open, this is about Mary.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Madman said:


> No one has claimed that oral tradition is inspired; I am saying that Paul gave it enough weight that he used it in his teaching.



Maybe not in this thread, but in other threads, it has been noted that it is on par with scripture as to the authority it has.  Is that not correct?



			
				Madman said:
			
		

> I gave no date for the writing of The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I know it was written in John’s life time, which I believe was before the books of the Bible were canonized.



I agree.



			
				Madman said:
			
		

> As for my “warped” view of Sola Scriptura, I am not sure what the “correct” view is, you can find as many definitions of Sola Scriptura as you find Protestant denominations.



 that is my expression after a blow below the belt  Good one though



			
				Madman said:
			
		

> I take it at face value, “the sufficiency of Scripture alone”.  My point is only that if you narrow the scope of your faith to that it is an awkward place to stand.



Why is it awkward?  I think that it has everything that we need.  Now...the writings of others that have better knowledge of the original language and customs/times can add stability to the Bible that I have, but it in no way can or should contradict it.




			
				Madman said:
			
		

> If ya’ll wish to discuss Sola Scriptura maybe another thread needs to open, this is about Mary.


please don't...there's been enough of them already.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> just because you write it on an internet forum doesn't make it fact.


 
A very astute observation that would apply to most of the opinions typed in the SF, including many of yours.. regardless of the topic.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Anytime you're up in Covington area....we'll do it....can't have a cigar "alone" you know



I'm not on the list but I am in Covington today.  Let's light'em up!!!


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> dawg...sometime, we'll have to hang out and drink a beer and smoke a cigar.
> 
> You, dom, big7, me and HF.
> 
> ...


I like cigars and beer  Neither are good allein (alone)


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

No answer???


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> please don't...there's been enough of them already.



Very well.  I won't continue to hi-jack this thread.

Back to Mary Mother of God.

PS Nothing was intended as a "Low Blow"  My apologies.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Madman said:


> Very well.  I won't continue to hi-jack this thread.
> 
> Back to Mary Mother of God.
> 
> PS Nothing was intended as a "Low Blow"  My apologies.



Oh...no worries on the comment.  I thought it was a good one...that is why I put the 



If you see a guy driving around in an old toyota 4x4 jacked up and painted camo...honk your horn and wave.  That's me driving it  I'm about to be headed that direction.

okay...back to it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Sparky1 said:


> A very astute observation that would apply to most of the opinions typed in the SF, including many of yours.. regardless of the topic.



really?  i thought that most in here do a fairly decent job of quoting some source to back up their reasoning.

So...do you have any reasoning as to your thoughts of when Revelation was written?  I'll refresh my own and try and post tomorrow.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> really? i thought that most in here do a fairly decent job of quoting some source to back up their reasoning.
> 
> So...do you have any reasoning as to your thoughts of when Revelation was written? I'll refresh my own and try and post tomorrow.


 
Google is your friend, you can either stick to the repressive archaic timeline that follows one book after another in chronological order (as most believe) which would have been impossible and is a rediculous notion, or you can search the studies of a plethera of scholars and theologans over the last century that are willing to tell the truth.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> I just hold to the fact that the Bible is 100% complete and 100% accurate.  I know (or believe) that it is the inerrant Word of God.  Therefore, it is the measuring rod for all other things.



Then why was the church forced to do without it for so long?

I believe the text of the NT was completed around 100 AD, but you couldn't just walk down to the local Christian bookstore and buy a copy.  Even if you could, you were probably illiterate, so it didn't matter.  As I said before, the average Christian of the first few centuries had little or no access to NT writings.  The canon wasn't even finalized till the late 4th century.  The NT wasn't widely available until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.

Why was the church forced to wait so long for "the measuring rod for all other things"?


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 27, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> Then why was the church forced to do without it for so long?
> 
> I believe the text of the NT was completed around 100 AD, but you couldn't just walk down to the local Christian bookstore and buy a copy.  Even if you could, you were probably illiterate, so it didn't matter.  As I said before, the average Christian of the first few centuries had little or no access to NT writings.  The canon wasn't even finalized till the late 4th century.  The NT wasn't widely available until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.
> 
> Why was the church forced to wait so long for "the measuring rod for all other things"?



First, the early church was encouraged to make copies of the letters and spread them around. That is why so many copies are available today to compare. The Scribes had been doing this for the OT for years prior to that.

The more important question is why the Church leadership (following the first centuries) resisted letting everyone have access to the scripture. Even when printing made it possible the "Church" did not feel the laity needed one for themselves..........RW


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2010)

Mat 11:11  Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 

There are some that would beguile you with religious superstitions and traditions, some that would seek your crown, some that would bring you into bondage in their venerations, ablutions, recognition of so called holy garments...and on and on ad nauseum.

The simple question becomes does: Jesus know what he is speaking about?
Was there someone greater than John the baptist, who now merits special consideration? 
Especially when no special consideration is ever made regarding our brother John?

If you want to put someone between you and Jesus, don't think you do not offend the Holy Spirit.
He is here to testify of no one else, here to make plain to any who would seek the truth the immeasurable incomparableness of the Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ.

He who honors the son, honors the Father.

Who makes intercession for the saints?
Who helps us in our infirmities when we know not what to pray?

In short...is there someone more special to God than you...bought with the blood of his own Son?

If you believe this:

Joh 17:23  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 

How can you be beguiled into believing there is someone who holds a more special place in God's heart than you?

If you don't believe it, at least acknowledge who you are calling a liar.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump, open the door to this superstition, place anyone between you and the Lord, and you open the door to all the other uncleanness that defiles and keeps in bondage.

You will find yourself in servitude to those who "hold and minister the mysteries" of these superstitions precisely to keep you from the Lord...and who, by receiving such worship, bring you in to the worship of their fallen prince of darkness.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 27, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> First, the early church was encouraged to make copies of the letters and spread them around. That is why so many copies are available today to compare. The Scribes had been doing this for the OT for years prior to that.


 
You may want to look into exactly what is left of the first century writings, and who preserved them.



Inthegarge said:


> The more important question is why the Church leadership (following the first centuries) resisted letting everyone have access to the scripture. Even when printing made it possible the "Church" did not feel the laity needed one for themselves..........RW


 
I am curious to know if you can provide any proof, some document, that the Church restricted the Scriptures, other then obvious heretical versions, that even the Protestants rejected.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 27, 2010)

Now , what does the bible reveal about trying to communicate with a dead Saint ?

1Sa 28:7  Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, [there is] a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. 
1Sa 28:8  And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee. 
1Sa 28:9  And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? 
1Sa 28:10  And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, [As] the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. 
1Sa 28:11  Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. 
1Sa 28:12  And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou [art] Saul. 
1Sa 28:13  And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 
1Sa 28:14  And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself. 
1Sa 28:15  And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up from my rest? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. 

16 Samuel said, "Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? 17 The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David. 18 Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. 19 The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines." 
 20 Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel's words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night. 


There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.  Deuteronomy 18:10​


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

Israel said:


> You will find yourself in servitude to those who "hold and minister the mysteries" of these superstitions precisely to keep you from the Lord...and who, by receiving such worship, bring you in to the worship of their fallen prince of darkness.


 
So if you had been privy to meet Mother Teresa during her lifetime would you have let her pray for you?


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 27, 2010)

Israel said:


> Mat 11:11  Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
> 
> There are some that would beguile you with religious superstitions and traditions, some that would seek your crown, some that would bring you into bondage in their venerations, ablutions, recognition of so called holy garments...and on and on ad nauseum.
> 
> ...



All valid points that are right on target.

Logical, scripture based.

Based upon Jesus' words concerning John the Baptist one could assume that Jesus didn't consider Himself born of woman, or 'earthly' born.
His origin was in heaven.  He existed prior to the oceans.


----------



## Big7 (Apr 27, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> Then why was the church forced to do without it for so long?
> 
> I believe the text of the NT was completed around 100 AD, but you couldn't just walk down to the local Christian bookstore and buy a copy.  Even if you could, you were probably illiterate, so it didn't matter.  As I said before, the average Christian of the first few centuries had little or no access to NT writings.  The canon wasn't even finalized till the late 4th century.  The NT wasn't widely available until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.
> 
> Why was the church forced to wait so long for "the measuring rod for all other things"?



Catholic Oral Tradition!

Yes... Mary is the Mother of Jesus. 
( You know- The God Man)


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Sparky1 said:


> Google is your friend, you can either stick to the repressive archaic timeline that follows one book after another in chronological order (as most believe) which would have been impossible and is a rediculous notion, or you can search the studies of a plethera of scholars and theologans over the last century that are willing to tell the truth.



  get over yourself and google/internet can give you whatever response you want.  You imply that I believe a repressive and archaic gospel.  You never answer any questions...you just do little drive by responses acting as coy as possible.  It is annoying at best....but I'll respond to show you and others why I believe that Revelation was the last book written in the NT.  And no...I don't believe that the books of the Bible are laid out in chronological order.  For instance, most scholars believe Job was the first book written in the Bible.  Clearly, the Bible doesn't start with Job.  Acts is also the 5th book of the NT and spans more than 30 years.  Doubt it was written before I Cor.

Okay....back to revelation timeline.

Most Scholars believe that the book was written by the apostle John...that is not where scholars disagree...and I don't either.

Some believe that John wrote it during Nero's reign around late 50sAD/early 60sAD.  Some believe that it was written in the mid 90s AD during Domitian's reign.  Here's why.

ECF Irenaeus declared that Revelation had been written toward the end of Domitian's reign.  Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius and Jerome all affirm the Domitian date.

Also, the spiritual decline of the 7 churches argue for the later date.  The mid-60s date doesn't jive with that as Paul didn't mention these churches struggling during that same time period, but rather that they were healthy and vibrant churches.  Why would Paul not mention the struggles of these churches in any of his writings like John in Revelation if they were struggling while he was on his 3rd Missionary Journey?

Also, the later date allows time for the rise of the heretical sect of the Nicolaitians (mentioned in Rev 2:6,15).  These are not mentioned in any of Paul's letters.

Lastly, an early date doesn't give John's ministry time to flourish and reach a point that would cause the Romans to exile him to Patmos.

I wish I could say I came up with all of that on my own..but I didn't.  While I did not copy verbatim, the content came from Dr. MacArthur's study Bible...specifically page 1989.




centerpin fan said:


> Then why was the church forced to do without it for so long?
> 
> I believe the text of the NT was completed around 100 AD, but you couldn't just walk down to the local Christian bookstore and buy a copy.  Even if you could, you were probably illiterate, so it didn't matter.  As I said before, the average Christian of the first few centuries had little or no access to NT writings.  The canon wasn't even finalized till the late 4th century.  The NT wasn't widely available until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.
> 
> Why was the church forced to wait so long for "the measuring rod for all other things"?




It is interesting that you claim the NT was so difficult to find, yet when you ask a Catholic about why the Church kept the people from having copies of it, they say that there were plenty for folks to read.  I know I won't be able to find the post, but I believe it was made by Dominic in a prior Catholic thread.

The church was not forced to wait...they had copies.  Now..the common man?  Maybe not, but why would that keep the Church leaders from teaching it?  If I was a part of the church at Galatia, when that letter came from Paul, I'd copy it myself so I had it for my own copy.  There were plenty of writings to go around for the churches to have.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 27, 2010)

Madman said:


> A point to ponder:
> 
> What can really be said of this passage?  Paul was not referring to the New Testament as the “Parchments” had not been canonized. In fact some of the Epistles had not even been written, therefore he must have been speaking only of the Old Testament.  So if we strictly follow Paul’s words we must exclude his letter to Timothy because it was not Scripture at the time.
> 
> ...



I'm Impressed !


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> get over yourself and google/internet can give you whatever response you want. You imply that I believe a repressive and archaic gospel. You never answer any questions...you just do little drive by responses acting as coy as possible. It is annoying at best....but I'll respond to show you and others why I believe that Revelation was the last book written in the NT. And no...I don't believe that the books of the Bible are laid out in chronological order. For instance, most scholars believe Job was the first book written in the Bible. Clearly, the Bible doesn't start with Job. Acts is also the 5th book of the NT and spans more than 30 years. Doubt it was written before I Cor.
> 
> Okay....back to revelation timeline.
> 
> ...


 

Character profiles are an easy study, despite your initial response, atypical of your postings, I am glad to see you actually did branch out and do some studying, via google.

Keep up the good work, broadening of ones horizons keeps the brain young and occasionally knowledge is gained.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Character profiles are an easy study, despite your initial response, atypical of your postings, I am glad to see you actually did branch out and do some studying, via google.
> 
> Keep up the good work, broadening of ones horizons keeps the brain young and occasionally knowledge is gained.





where did I mention that I study via google?

And can you respond to a valid point and debate response? or do you just give a sarcastic compliment, change your username and go to a different thread repeating the same thing again?


----------



## chiefsquirrel83 (Apr 27, 2010)

The Virgin Mary was the mother of the one I call my Lord and Savior. God chose Mary to have the Son of God. She is just as important in my faith as Jesus, God, etc.....and no I am not catholic....just how believe....


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> where did I mention that I study via google?
> 
> And can you respond to a valid point and debate response? or do you just give a sarcastic compliment, change your username and go to a different thread repeating the same thing again?


 
I didn't change my username. I don't have that ability. Higher powers are at work here.

Slow deep breaths, it will help you cope.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I didn't change my username. I don't have that ability. Higher powers are at work here.
> 
> Slow deep breaths, it will help you cope.



Okay Sparky

Again...another backhanded reply with no content.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2010)

Are any of the catholics going to answer the question that a few of us have asked? How can you pray to someone that has passed on? Surely if you could pray to Mary, you should be able to pray to former Popes that have passed???? Not taking anything away from Mary or any Popes, but if you can for one, why not others?


----------



## Big7 (Apr 27, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Are any of the catholics going to answer the question that a few of us have asked? How can you pray to someone that has passed on? Surely if you could pray to Mary, you should be able to pray to former Popes that have passed???? Not taking anything away from Mary or any Popes, but if you can for one, why not others?



Yes.. I can.
What is it that you want to know?
Keep it simple.. I'm not a mind reader.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay Sparky
> 
> Again...another backhanded reply with no content.


 
Simple question for you amigo. Do you believe that the KJV since it's original printing is the absolute Word of God?


----------



## chiefsquirrel83 (Apr 27, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Are any of the catholics going to answer the question that a few of us have asked? How can you pray to someone that has passed on? Surely if you could pray to Mary, you should be able to pray to former Popes that have passed???? Not taking anything away from Mary or any Popes, but if you can for one, why not others?



I pray to my grandparents that have passed on and to Jesus who has passed on(but will be coming back of course)....


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Simple question for you amigo. Do you believe that the KJV since it's original printing is the absolute Word of God?





Nope....because I don't believe the Dueterocanonical books to be part of the canon/inspired Word of God.

Now...answer honestly....did you expect that response? or was your preconceived opinion of me slightly off?


----------



## Big7 (Apr 27, 2010)

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=4883094&postcount=151

Still waiting...


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 27, 2010)

Big7 said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=4883094&postcount=151
> 
> Still waiting...



have patience man...it was only 29 minutes ago

I think his question was about praying to Mary along with millions of other Catholics.

As she is not omniscient, how does she hear them all and or choose the ones she passes on to God?


----------



## Big7 (Apr 27, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> have patience man...it was only 29 minutes ago
> 
> I think his question was about praying to Mary along with millions of other Catholics.
> 
> As she is not omniscient, how does she hear them all and or choose the ones she passes on to God?



For the 10 billion-th time.
NO CATHOLIC " PRAYS TO MARY"
 or a Pope or a Saint.

We Venerate and ASK them to PRAY FOR US!

Intercession and Veneration

From earliest times Mary's intercession was believed to be especially efficacious on behalf of humankind and the church; since the Middle Ages, recitation of the rosary has been among the most popular expressions of Marian devotion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces. The body of doctrine about Mary is called Mariology; Mariolatry is an opprobrious term used since the Reformation to mean the worship of Mary-a criticism leveled by many Protestants at the cult of Mary within the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics maintain that the veneration (hyperdulia) accorded Mary, while higher than that accorded any other creature, is infinitely lower than the worship (latria) reserved for Jesus. The principal feasts honoring Mary are those of the Assumption (Aug. 15), the Birthday of Our Lady (Sept. 8), the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8), the Purification (Feb. 2: see Candlemas), and the Annunciation or Lady Day (Mar. 25).



Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran
In Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran theology, veneration is a type of honor distinct from the adoration due to God alone. According to Deacon Dr. Mark Miravelle, of Franciscan University of Steubenville, the English word "worship" has been associated with both veneration and adoration:

Adoration, which is known as latria in classical theology, is the worship and homage that is rightly offered to God alone. It is the acknowledgement of excellence and perfection of an uncreated, divine person. It is the worship of the Creator that God alone deserves. Veneration, known as dulia in classical theology, is the honor due to the excellence and a created person. This refers to the excellence exhibited by the created being who likewise deserves recognition and honor. We see a general example of veneration in events like the awarding of academic awards for excellence in school, or the awarding of the Olympic medals for excellence in sports. There is nothing contrary to the proper adoration of God when we offer the appropriate honor and recognition that created persons deserve based on achievement in excellence. Here a further clarification should be made regarding the use of the term "worship" in relation to the categories of adoration and veneration. Some schools of theology use the term "worship" to introduce both adoration and veneration. They would distinguish between "worship of adoration" and "worship of veneration." The word "worship" (in the same way the theological term "cult" is traditionally used) in these classical definitions was not at all synonymous with adoration, but could be used to introduce either adoration or veneration. Hence Catholic writers will sometimes use the term "worship" not to indicate adoration, but only the worship of veneration given to Mary and the saints.[1]

Church theologians have long adopted the terms latria for the type of worship due to God alone, and dulia for the veneration given to saints and icons. Catholic theology also includes the term hyperdulia for the type of veneration specifically paid to Mary, mother of Jesus, in Catholic tradition. This distinction is spelled out in the dogmatic conclusions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), which also decreed that iconoclasm (forbidding icons and their veneration) is a heresy that amounts to a denial of the incarnation of Jesus.

Now, the Roman Catholic tradition has a well established philosophy for the veneration of the Virgin Mary via the field of Mariology with Pontifical schools such as the Marianum specifically devoted to this task[2][3][4].

NEXT!


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 28, 2010)

Big7 said:


> For the 10 billion-th time.
> NO CATHOLIC " PRAYS TO MARY"
> or a Pope or a Saint.
> 
> We Venerate and ASK them to PRAY FOR US!



Hmm...so a Hail Mary is not a prayer?

Oh..and btw, I think Dom is a Catholic and per his response to HF, he prays to Mary and other saints as well.



Huntinfool said:


> Perhaps I can rephrase then. Do you pray to anyone else who is with Christ?  Do you ask anyone else who has passed from this earth to intercede on your behalf?
> 
> Is there a reason he wouldn't just hear your plea directly?  His will will be done in any case, correct?  Can she somehow change his mind anymore than you or I can?





Dominic said:


> Yes I do, I ask all the Saints in Heaven
> 
> 
> No reason at all. I do pray directly to Him also.
> ...





I'll modify my original question.  If it is not a prayer to Mary (I think we are arguing over semantics now, but I'll move on) but rather requesting her to pray for us, how does she decide which prayers to take to God?


----------



## Big7 (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Hmm...so a Hail Mary is not a prayer?
> 
> Oh..and btw, I think Dom is a Catholic and per his response to HF, he prays to Mary and other saints as well.
> 
> ...



Yes. The Hail Mary IS a prayer.
Asking Her to pray for us NOW and at the hour of our death..
Also, acknowledges that She is FULL of GRACE and precious is the fruit of
her womb ... JESUS...

Dom is a Catholic: And he never said he prayed "to" Mary
or anyone else other than the Lord Jesus Christ.
He said he ask's Mary and all the other Saints to Pray for him.

How does she decide which prayers to take to God?
ALL OF THEM...


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 28, 2010)

Big7 said:


> Yes. The Hail Mary IS a prayer.
> Asking Her to pray for us NOW and at the hour of our death..
> Also, acknowledges that She is FULL of GRACE and precious is the fruit of
> her womb ... JESUS...
> ...




Okay...I'm confused...past my bedtime for sure.

But how can the Hail Mary be a Prayer asking Mary to intercede on one's behalf...but not be praying to Mary

uhh...that doesn't make sense to me.  oh well...i'm out.


----------



## Big7 (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...I'm confused...past my bedtime for sure.
> 
> But how can the Hail Mary be a Prayer asking Mary to intercede on one's behalf...but not be praying to Mary
> 
> uhh...that doesn't make sense to me.  oh well...i'm out.



Just like these 4123 as of 12:35 am.
http://forum.gon.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 28, 2010)

“Every spirit on earth was fathered by God. Isn't that amazing ?”

Wait a sec.  Does that mean that all of our Mothers were virgins before they were raped by God?

That is so very disturbing . . .

It is hard enough to accept the idea that a God, who by the definition of gods can do anything, thought it was a good idea to cuckold that poor sap Joseph and knock up his wife while she was still a virgin.  Doesn’t say much for Joseph, anyway, (and less for God, what with pulling a back-room stunt like that on Joseph) but still, you’d have to think that ending up pregnant, while still a virgin, had to pretty tough for this Mary to explain to her husband, who obviously married her without reaping a single reward . . .

God covets our women?  Who knew? And doesn’t this whole story of ‘gods’ raping human women feel just a bit derivative?  Seems like the ancient myths predating the Bible by quite a stretch told that tale once too often . . .      

“. . . do you have any reasoning as to your thoughts of when Revelation was written?”   

Well . . . yeah – ‘John The Divine’ was exiled to a barren island because he was completely insane, and was judged to be unfit to live in civil society.  I suppose that was a perfect place to write the closing Book of the Bible, and I suppose that the Lord chose his author well . . .  The whole chapter reads a bit like Timothy Leary meets Charles Manson in a dark alley with a Wiccan priestess narrating and neglecting to mention the substances involved . . . 

But hey, if one can believe that God runs around knocking up our virgins, then it can’t be a tough stretch to the admonition that one may not mow the lawn – by the Decree of God – Revelations 9:4: “And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree . . . “  

Next time the wife nags you to cut the grass, quote Revelations --  it gets you off the hook.

I love that Book . . .


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Nope....because I don't believe the Dueterocanonical books to be part of the canon/inspired Word of God.
> 
> Now...answer honestly....did you expect that response? or was your preconceived opinion of me slightly off?


 
Very good, however, they were excluded, or deemed dueterocanonical because they weren't written in Hebrew, so it was assumed they were not apostolic. Would that infer that they were merely word of mouth tales handed down for generations or would it infer that they were translated to Greek and the original documents merely lost? Well we now know that four of the transcripts WERE actually written in Hebrew, since they have been found, so is it not fair that they be reinstated due to the misleading reason for them to be omitted to begin with?

Why are any books of the Apocrypha? Earlier reasoning was because they were not apostolic, now we learn that they weren't written in Hebrew so they weren't apostolic. Surely the early theologans weren't so narrow minded and lacking in wisdom that a translation was discounted merely because of what language it was written in? Or perhaps it was a cultural prejudice?? We all know that cultural and gender prejudices abound in Christianity, even to this day.

Given that these four books, that remain in the Catholic Bible, have proven to be accurate should we not then give a little leverage to what may be gained from reading them, as well as some credit to how the Catholics believe and worship.

I mean after all, Protestant Christians seem quick to pull the trigger on scripture quoting and being / getting offended if ever their methods of worship are thought about being questioned.

In contrast, the Catholics, especially the ones I have met, and even the ones I am related to, are very mild mannered when it comes to matters of the Bible.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Big 7, But that's what's not making sence. Ok, don't call it praying to Mary, now how can she intercede for you if she is dead? I understand how any live person can pray for you, that's intercession, but mediation was only given to one, Jesus. To my knowing, there is no communication to the dead from this earth. What writings. / scripture do you have that proves or leads you to believe that Mary can hear your prayer, the same as Jesus does?


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

Desert Soldier; said:
			
		

> I can't understand why SS devotees can't seem to get it that there is more to Christianity than is found in the Bible.



Let me be clear before I post this. I am in no way putting these religions in the same "level". 

However, I would like to point out that it would not be odd at all to hear a Mormon or a Jehovas Witness make the exact same statement. 

That is why SS is important to me and to many others. As Israel pointed out yesterday, "tradition" changes over time depending on who is in charge and making the decisions (the meat on Fridays thing that was deleted). The written Word of God does not. 

I do not worship the Bible. But I trust it's contents implicitly and am confident that it will be the same for my grandchildren's grandhildren.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

Big7 said:


> How does she decide which prayers to take to God?
> ALL OF THEM...



Big7,

Let me ask again the question that you seem to be avoiding. 

Pray/talk to/request of/sing to....whatever you sy you do toward Mary....there are millions and millions of Catholics in the world. If all or even a tenth of them were to call on her for intercession at the exact same moment, how would she hear them all?  

Is she omnipresent?  Can she hear all requests concurrently?  Is that an ability that all who have passed possess or is it unique to her...or the saints maybe?

That is what rj was trying to follow up on.  I honestly don't know what you guys believe on the issue. That's why I ask. Someone (DS I think) was going to follow up with us. But we haven't heard anything. 

At least he admitted it was a good question and would have to research the answer.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Big7 said:


> Yes.. I can.
> What is it that you want to know?
> Keep it simple.. I'm not a mind reader.





Spotlite said:


> I dont have an issue with saints who have died on earth and are now alive in heaven. The issue is communicating to them, or praying to them as a mediater, such as praying to Mary. Some folks are confusing intercessorer and mediatior, they are not the same. You can have multiple intercessories, but there is only one mediater.
> 
> Right now, I can ask for prayer. I might get 20 folks saying they will pray for me, thats intercessory prayer. But if you die today, I cant communicate to you and ask you to pray for me. In either case, you, Bob nor Mary or any other human can mediate for me dead or alive and certainly cant intercede for me once your dead.
> Thats what I would like to have explained to me, how do you intercede with those that have passed on?



These.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> That is why SS is important to me and to many others. As Israel pointed out yesterday, "tradition" changes over time depending on who is in charge and making the decisions (the meat on Fridays thing that was deleted).



First the "no meat on Friday" thing has not changed, in fact I do not eat meat on Fridays, and was never doctrine nor dogma it was a discipline. 

That is why it is not Tradition Alone. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition must be viewed through the light of the Magisterium

CCC 85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”

CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

CCC 890 “The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism has several forms.”





Huntinfool said:


> The written Word of God does not.


 
No but our understanding and use of language does. A verse that meant one thing one hundred years ago among Protestants may mean something completely different today. I would point to contraception.



Huntinfool said:


> I do not worship the Bible. But I trust it's contents implicitly and am confident that it will be the same for my grandchildren's grandhildren.


So should Catholics, we also trust that God would not leave us here alone without some way of understanding Sacred Scripture as a unified whole.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Big7,
> 
> Let me ask again the question that you seem to be avoiding.
> 
> ...


 
I have never been aware of time in Heaven


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> These.


 
I guess we do not view those who die in Christ the same way. I have said a few times that I believe if you die in Christ you will have everlasting life.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> I have never been aware of time in Heaven



Excellent dodge.....  So omnipresence is simply a result of no time in Heaven?  It's not a unique attribute of God?


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> First the "no meat on Friday" thing has not changed, in fact I do not eat meat on Fridays, and was never doctrine nor dogma it was a discipline.
> 
> That is why it is not Tradition Alone. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition must be viewed through the light of the Magisterium.



See?  Told you I didn't understand a lot about Catholicism.  So, none of the Sacred Tradition has changed over time?



> CCC 85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome
> 
> CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
> 
> CCC 890 “The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism has several forms."



So then, (and I'm likely oversimplifying) the issue is that regular folks are not equipped to read and understand and trust the Magesterium to tell them what each passage means?

Not good or bad...just making sure I understand.  From a "consistency of interpretation" perspective, I can see why that would be very unifying.  I am just hesitant to give up my ability to logic and reason.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Acts...and the rest of the NT
> 
> And I have no problem with those scriptures...I just hold to the fact that the Bible is 100% complete and 100% accurate.  I know (or believe) that it is the inerrant Word of God.  Therefore, it is the measuring rod for all other things.  If the ECFs teach in line with scripture...  If they don't...  If my church teaches outside the lines of scripture on core doctrines, I'll discuss with the pastor/elders and if it isn't changed, then I'll leave and find a place that does agree with Scripture.
> 
> Again, the early church had to use the NT letter's and the writings of the apostles as the measuring rods.  There were false teachers in that time as well.



And THIS is what cracks Catholics up. You guys will argue with us about Scripture but you can't seem to agree on it at all. And if you disagree, up pops the 56th Baptist Church of Woodstock. Or you guys will water it completely down and make up a new and improved way to worship and daon't call it anything but a Community Church or something cool like "Crossroads". I saw a sign on GA 20 last week that said "Bistro Worship". What the heck is that? 

Protestants are fond of saying they personally interpret Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit but you have 33,000 Protestant denominations who cannot agree on exactly what the Holy Spirit is saying. 

The Catholic Church can be complicated at first but if you actually study the history of Christianity, it all makes sense. I guess the best thing I can say is that I completely trust in what Jesus founded and instructed Peter to do and I don't dwell on the small details that seem to get everyone in here caught up. Everyone wants to be "right". If I have questions, I go to my Bible and my Catechism. 

I have been to a LOT of churches in my life. I was raised Catholic but left and tried the Church of God, then the Methodist, then the Assemblies of God, then the Baptist, then the Christian, then a seeker sensitive non-denominational church, back to Baptist. Then i came back to the Catholic Church and it was like I finally could see what I had been looking for for the last 10 years. 

I know people come into this forum who are not Christians or who are looking hard for a church. I strongly suggest that you at least TRY the Catholic Church. one billion people can't all be wrong. It is an amazing faith that is multi-faceted and mysterious and awe inspiring. And Adoration....man...what a miracle to behold. I have NEVER seen that in any other church. I personally feel there is no better way to experience Jesus Christ than Adoration. Especially at about 3 AM...lol.

I'm gonna let you guys argue a while.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> See? Told you I didn't understand a lot about Catholicism. So, none of the Sacred Tradition has changed over time?


 
Dogma & Doctrine are unchanging 



Huntinfool said:


> So then, (and I'm likely oversimplifying) the issue is that regular folks are not equipped to read and understand and trust the Magesterium to tell them what each passage means?


 
You would be surprised at how few verses from the bible have been strictly defined by the Church.



Huntinfool said:


> Not good or bad...just making sure I understand. From a "consistency of interpretation" perspective, I can see why that would be very unifying. I am just hesitant to give up my ability to logic and reason.


 
When you are at work, and you come upon a problem that you cannot solve using you own logic and reason, do you ever ask a person who may have had the same problem before? Or even better have you ever thought you solved a problem only to have someone in higher authority say "no you missed something, here is the correct answer"?


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 28, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> And THIS is what cracks Catholics up. You guys will argue with us about Scripture but you can't seem to agree on it at all. And if you disagree, up pops the 56th Baptist Church of Woodstock. Or you guys will water it completely down and make up a new and improved way to worship and daon't call it anything but a Community Church or something cool like "Crossroads". I saw a sign on GA 20 last week that said "Bistro Worship". What the heck is that?
> 
> Protestants are fond of saying they personally interpret Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit but you have 33,000 Protestant denominations who cannot agree on exactly what the Holy Spirit is saying.
> 
> ...



Quick question......Where are the Pope, Archbishops, Cardinals, etc ordained/established by Scriptute ????  RW


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> one billion people can't all be wrong.



Might want to weigh that statement in light of the number of followers of Islam my friend.  Numbers do not necessarily = correctness.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> When you are at work, and you come upon a problem that you cannot solve using you own logic and reason, do you ever ask a person who may have had the same problem before? Or even better have you ever thought you solved a problem only to have someone in higher authority say "no you missed something, here is the correct answer"?



Absolutely! And I do the same with scripture when speaking with my pastor of close friends who I trust are solidly grounded in scripture.

BUT....my impression is that "Here is the correct answer" comes PRIOR to my attempt at the problem in the Catholic church regardless of whether I solve it or not.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 28, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> Quick question......Where are the Pope, Archbishops, Cardinals, etc ordained/established by Scriptute ????  RW



OK...here is the quick answer and I am sure others will chime in.

The Catholic Church believes in Apostolic Succession. The basis for this belief is that when Judas killed himself, the remaining 11 casted lots and chose Mathias. Obviously because one was gone and they felt need to replace him. (Acts)

Here is something someone sent to me several months ago. I am going to copy and paste it because I am at work.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

A Protestant friend of mine and I recently had a debate over whether Jesus actually made St. Peter the first pope. Although I cited Matthew 16, my friend had some other interpretation of it. What is a good answer to this question?

In Catholic tradition, the foundation for the office of the pope is indeed found primarily in Matthew 16:13-20. Here, Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?"

St. Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father."

Because of this response, our Lord said to St. Peter, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.

The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.

On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some antipapal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text, where the masculine-gender word "petros," meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine-gender word "petra," meaning a massive, immoveable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the original Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, the word "Kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church."

"The gates of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----" is also an interesting Semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at gates; so this expression captures the greatest warmaking power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what our Lord is establishing-the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated St. Peter and his office so closely with Himself that He became a visible force protecting the Church and keeping back the power of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.

Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.

Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of "first among equals."

St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). SL Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15). At the end of his life, St. Peter was crucified, but in his humility asked to be crucified upside down.

As Catholics, we believe that the authority given to St. Peter did not end with his life but was handed on to his successors. The earliest writings attest to this belief. St. Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses described how the Church at Rome was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul and traced the handing on of the office of St. Peter through Linus, Cletus (also called Anacletus), and so on, through 12 successors to his own present day, Pope Eleutherius. Tertullian in De Praescriptione Haereticorum asserted the same point as did Origen in his Commentaries on John, St. Cyprian of Carthage in his The Unity of the Catholic Church and many others.

Granted, the expression of papal authority becomes magnified after the legalization of Christianity and especially after the fall of the Roman Empire and the ensuing political chaos. Nevertheless, our Church boasts of an unbroken line of legitimate successors of St. Peter who stand in the stead of Christ We must always remember that one of the official titles of the pope, first taken by Pope Gregory the Great is "Servant of the Servants of God."

As we think of this answer, may we be mindful of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and pray for his intentions.

Fr. Saunders is president of the Notre Dame Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.
This article appeared in the October 20, 1994 issue of The Arlington Catholic Herald.


----------



## 1kruger (Apr 28, 2010)

*becoming catholic*



Desert Soldier said:


> And THIS is what cracks Catholics up. You guys will argue with us about Scripture but you can't seem to agree on it at all. And if you disagree, up pops the 56th Baptist Church of Woodstock. Or you guys will water it completely down and make up a new and improved way to worship and daon't call it anything but a Community Church or something cool like "Crossroads". I saw a sign on GA 20 last week that said "Bistro Worship". What the heck is that?
> 
> Protestants are fond of saying they personally interpret Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit but you have 33,000 Protestant denominations who cannot agree on exactly what the Holy Spirit is saying.
> 
> ...



Be sure let everyone know they can attend but partake of the sacraments  if they  have been divorced and a couple other reasons. This is why my Motheer who is still a very devout Catholic but got divorced  out side the church and  now goes to the episcopalian church where such thing don`t matter as much.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Absolutely! And I do the same with scripture when speaking with my pastor of close friends who I trust are solidly grounded in scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT....my impression is that "Here is the correct answer" comes PRIOR to my attempt at the problem in the Catholic church regardless of whether I solve it or not.





None of the problems/questions you and I have, has not already been answered. Your pastor has heard your question before and has an answer, because some time in the past he has been asked the question, asked the question himself, or has been taught the answer.  He is appealing to the past or tradition for his answer.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

1kruger said:


> Be sure let everyone know they can attend but partake of the sacraments if they have been divorced and a couple other reasons. This is why my Motheer who is still a very devout Catholic but got divorced out side the church and now goes to the episcopalian church where such thing don`t matter as much.


 

If you are not Catholic or are not a Catholic in good standing then you many not recieve the Sacrament of Holy Communion, but you may make a Spiritual Communion, something I have had to do many times. This is not a punishment but a protection of one's soul. 

As to the other part about divorce, I will let others who know about it answer.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 28, 2010)

1kruger said:


> Be sure let everyone know they can attend but partake of the sacraments  if they  have been divorced and a couple other reasons. This is why my Motheer who is still a very devout Catholic but got divorced  out side the church and  now goes to the episcopalian church where such thing don`t matter as much.



True. Because we believe in such archaic stuff as "til death do us part", there is a process and  it is a lengthy one, to go through in order to partake of the Sacraments after you have been divorced. 

ALL divorces are "outside of the Church" as the Church does not condone divorce except in certain circumstances. 

You might want to ask yourself a question: WHY does divorce not matter as much in other churches?


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

> You might want to ask yourself a question: WHY does divorce not matter as much in other churches?



That's an EXCELLENT question.  I do agree with your church on this particular issue.


----------



## dbodkin (Apr 28, 2010)

I am Catholic.. and I do believe the Virgin Mary is the biological mother of Jesus Christ. It was called the immaculate conception.....

On the side note.. I DO NOT pray to Mary or any other Saint, I ask that THEY pray for me... Not a very hard concept. People do it every day here at Woody's. Just look at the "I need a prayer"  post from members including myself at times.

It's  Holy Mary "MOTHER of GOD"  pray for us sinners....


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> I guess we do not view those who die in Christ the same way. I have said a few times that I believe if you die in Christ you will have everlasting life.



I also believe you will have everlasting life. But thats not the question, the question is, how do yoy communicate from here on earth to them in Heaven???? 

This is not to de-grade Mary at all, she had to be a special lady for God to choose her to carry Jesus in her womb. I beleive she is in Heaven now. But, to sit her on the same pedestal as Jesus to hear or carry our petitions for us, is another ball game. Jesus said he would not leave us alone, he would send the Comforter. He did not mention anything about us asking Mary to intercede for us, he said he would go to the Father for us. But in a nut shell, even if you believe that Mary can petition for you, how do you know she ( or any other Saint that has passed ) can hear you??

There has to be some belief or teaching that leads you to that point.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2010)

I'll try again.



> I believe the Bible teaches that Mary is the mother of God incarnate, Jesus the Christ.
> 
> I have a question for the Roman Catholics; it is not meant for anyone to feel the need to defend their position but to explain it in terms that I can understand. Some of the philosophers on this forum write in metaphors, imagery, and descriptions that I sometimes fail to connect.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

dbodkin said:


> It was called the immaculate conception.....



Not in the Bible, it wasn't.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

Madman said:


> I'll try again.



It is, apparently, not a question easily answered.  It's been asked about a dozen times and gotten no response.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2010)

At the risk of seeming flippant, which I do not intend to be, perhaps that is why it is called a Hail Mary, and it is thrown out there in hopes that she hears my particular request.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Madman said:


> At the risk of seeming flippant, which I do not intend to be, perhaps that is why it is called a Hail Mary, and it is thrown out there in hopes that she hears my particular request.



Well thats allot closer to an answer than the Catholics are offering. But why, I mean do you have reason to believe that she has heard your request before, or do you have reason to believe she can even hear you? Thats the part I cant connect to, is the assurance that there is a possibility that Mary can hear you pray. I mean have that assurance through jesus, so why not just ask him?


----------



## Big7 (Apr 28, 2010)

dbodkin said:


> I am Catholic.. and I do believe the Virgin Mary is the biological mother of Jesus Christ. It was called the immaculate conception.....
> On the side note.. I DO NOT pray to Mary or any other Saint, I ask that THEY pray for me... Not a very hard concept. People do it every day here at Woody's. Just look at the "I need a prayer"  post from members including myself at times.
> 
> It's  Holy Mary "MOTHER of GOD"  pray for us sinners....



Not Exactly. Common mistake. No bad intent.

Since this thread is already off even being "de-railed"
Let's go ahead and clear this one up.
This is a common mis-conseption, even among Catholics.
The Immaculate Conception

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. 

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. 

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence. 

Complete with Fundamentalists’ Objections
May be found HERE:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp


This is a little more complicated but give it a shot.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Short Version is that she was concieved in the usual way by her parents BUT ... EXEMPT from original sin,
in preperation completly pure, to give birth to The Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Heaven is not in our time, Heaven is out of time. This does not make her anymore omnipresent then it does the Angels.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> I also believe you will have everlasting life. But thats not the question, the question is, how do yoy communicate from here on earth to them in Heaven????
> 
> This is not to de-grade Mary at all, she had to be a special lady for God to choose her to carry Jesus in her womb. I beleive she is in Heaven now. But, to sit her on the same pedestal as Jesus to hear or carry our petitions for us, is another ball game. Jesus said he would not leave us alone, he would send the Comforter. He did not mention anything about us asking Mary to intercede for us, he said he would go to the Father for us. But in a nut shell, even if you believe that Mary can petition for you, how do you know she ( or any other Saint that has passed ) can hear you??
> 
> There has to be some belief or teaching that leads you to that point.


 
So your contention is "if Christ did not mention it then it must be incorrect".

Do you believe the Angels can hear us?

Acts 12:7

Matt. 27:52-53

Matt. 22:30

Matt. 5:44-45

Rev. 5:8

Rev. 8:3-4

Rev. 6:9-11

Rev. 1:4


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> So your contention is "if Christ did not mention it then it must be incorrect".
> 
> Do you believe the Angels can hear us?
> 
> ...



What Im getting at, is why pray or hail to Mary, when you have Jesus?  Jesus was pretty specific when he said what ever you ask in my name, I will do. So why is there a need to hope that Mary can hear your petitions?

There is no need for "3rd party favortism" 
Its like you buying the prosecuter lunch, just before the trial of one of your family members.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> What Im getting at, is why pray or hail to Mary, when you have Jesus? Jesus was pretty specific when he said what ever you ask in my name, I will do. So why is there a need to hope that Mary can hear your petitions?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you ever go into the Spiritual Support and Encouragement section and ask for prayers?

If you answer yes, then my question is why do so when you have Jesus, why do you ask others for prayers?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Do you ever go into the Spiritual Support and Encouragement section and ask for prayers?
> 
> If you answer yes, then my question is why do so when you have Jesus, why do you ask others for prayers?



I beleive in intercessory prayer. I can talk to those folks in that forum and have a conversation. I cant have a conversation with Mary. That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit. We have that same spirit in us as Jesus when we accept Jesus, so through the spirit, we can communicate with him. We dont have that with Mary, or any other saint that has gone on. Regardless if they can or can not hear us, see us etc. There is no line of communication there.

I know the throw back has been the prayer request we ask from others, but the difference, is a live person here, and person that has gone on.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> I beleive in intercessory prayer. I can talk to those folks in that forum and have a conversation. I cant have a conversation with Mary. That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit. We have that same spirit in us as Jesus when we accept Jesus, so through the spirit, we can communicate with him. We dont have that with Mary, or any other saint that has gone on. Regardless if they can or can not hear us, see us etc. There is no line of communication there.
> 
> I know the throw back has been the prayer request we ask from others, but the difference, is a live person here, and person that has gone on.


 

So those in Heaven do not have the same spirit in them as Jesus? That same spirit as you?

How do you know there is no line of communication there?


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 28, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> And THIS is what cracks Catholics up.
> 
> Protestants are fond of saying they personally interpret Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit but you have 33,000 Protestant denominations who cannot agree on exactly what the Holy Spirit is saying.



And Catholics have never disagreed on things?

I will say this...there are core doctrines that the Bible teaches that not ever Protestant church teaches.  I will not waiver on those core doctrines.

There are secondary and tertiary doctrines that it teaches as well.  Those items, I am more willing to overlook and admit that scripture is not 100% clear.



Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why are any books of the Apocrypha?



Miguel....Sparky1...Sparky...60grit.....(I'm sure there are several others I'm missing in there)

If they were originally penned in Hebrew, why do the Jews not accept them as part of the Word of God?




Madman said:


> At the risk of seeming flippant, which I do not intend to be, perhaps that is why it is called a Hail Mary, and it is thrown out there in hopes that she hears my particular request.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> If they were originally penned in Hebrew, why do the Jews not accept them as part of the Word of God?





Let's see they were used by Hellenized Jews, like Christ and His disciples, and were rejected along with those crazy new writings from of the not yet separate sect of Judaism the Christians, in order to unify the Jewish people after the 2nd revolt.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> So those in Heaven do not have the same spirit in them as Jesus? That same spirit as you?
> 
> How do you know there is no line of communication there?



Well, I guess they would have that same spirit. But how do you know there is a line of communication?

What about the rich man, he could see into heaven and beg for water, but there was a great gulf fixed between that would not allow Lazerous to look down?

Im just a firm believer that those that have gone on, do not carry the weight or burdens of this world with them.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Let's see they were used by Hellenized Jews, like Christ and His disciples,



They were?  Or is that just opinion?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Well, I guess they would have that same spirit. But how do you know there is a line of communication?


 
I think we ask each other the same question from different directions



Spotlite said:


> What about the rich man, he could see into heaven and beg for water, but there was a great gulf fixed between that would not allow Lazerous to look down?


 
What about that rich man? Where was he? Seems odd that if he was in He l l that he would have compassion for his fellow man. Is there compassion in He l l? And where was Lazarus for that matter? Also odd that while he could not go inbetween, Abraham could still speak to the rich man.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> They were? Or is that just opinion?


 
Yes they were.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2010)

Dominic said:


> What about that rich man? Where was he? Seems odd that if he was in He l l that he would have compassion for his fellow man. Is there compassion in He l l? And where was Lazarus for that matter? Also odd that while he could not go inbetween, Abraham could still speak to the rich man.


OK, that`s fair enough.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> And Catholics have never disagreed on things?
> 
> Sure...but we understand that if it is not endorsed by the Church, it is against Christianity. We don't go out and start a new church over a disagreement. The Magesterium will settle these things and we get to keep our Church.
> 
> ...


----------



## Big7 (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> and catholics have never disagreed on things?





rjcruiser said:


> and catholics have never disagreed on things?
> 
> sure...but we understand that if it is not endorsed by the church, it _*is against christianity*_. We don't go out and start a new church over a disagreement. The magesterium will settle these things and we get to keep our church.
> 
> ...


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 28, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> [Sure...but we understand that if it is not endorsed by the Church, it is against Christianity. We don't go out and start a new church over a disagreement. The Magesterium will settle these things and we get to keep our Church.



Seems to me I remember at least one schism



			
				DS said:
			
		

> If they are Bible based, then EVERY Protestant church would be in agreement, right?



That is a correct assumption if every Protestant church was based on the Bible.  Unfortunately, the Bible has grown out of fashion with many.



			
				DS said:
			
		

> So, Scripture isn't 100% clear? THEN what do you do? Would you defer to what the early Christians thought about the matter and the letters that were written by the 12 Disciples and thier followers if they wrote about that issue and said that they were made clear on that very same situation?



No...Scripture isn't 100% clear.  It doesn't tell you what style of music to play on Sunday mornings...it doesn't tell you what color the pews should be...it isn't 100% clear on whether baptism should be done by immersion or pouring water over the head.

Sure...their are ECF writings and traditions that should be brought into the equation as to why we believe what we believe, but ultimate authority lies on the Bible (darn...that sola scriptura thing keeps rearing its ugly head ).  On these issues that aren't 100% clear, I call them more preference issues and these issues won't be the final say as to me going to the church or not.

For example....Huntinfool and I live pretty close to each other.  We have very similar views on a lot of things.  However, we don't go to the same church.  Why?  Because there are preferences that I have.  That is not to say that my church is any better/worse than his.  Just different in some areas that cause me to feel more comfortable at my own.

Now...when we talk about core doctrines/principles, those are what I'll leave a church over.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> And Catholics have never disagreed on things?



Yes they have.  The difference is that they remained in communion and tried to work it out.  They used the Bible, The Holy Spirit, tradition and the fathers to work it out.

Us Protestants just get mad, go across the street and start another church.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Now...when we talk about core doctrines/principles, those are what I'll leave a church over.



I don't believe Luther had a problem with the Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, I believe his main point of contention was with the newer traditions.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 28, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> This is just my opinion based on a lifetime of Catholicism:
> 
> It is hard for a non-Catholic to understand our traditions because most of your denominations are not old enough to have a base in what the early Christians believed and were taught by the Disciples, AND, most were founded with a base of total hatred towards Catholicism. Not saying this is a bad thing, but a schism is a schism.
> 
> ...



Can you show any scripture , to say that the first Christians who by the way were Jewish, prayed to Saints or Mary ?
That would be an abomination under God's law.


----------



## Desert Soldier (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Seems to me I remember at least one schism
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura?



Lowjack said:


> Can you show any scripture , to say that the first Christians who by the way were Jewish, prayed to Saints or Mary ?
> That would be an abomination under God's law.



For the one billionth and one time...Catholics only pray TO God and Jesus. We ask for intercession from Mary and the saints.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 28, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> Where in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura?



I already gave the answer to that question...got the debate about the timing of the writing of Revelation.  Believe it was page 3 or 4


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

It is interesting how we can be hung up on a word like "pray". One word can have many different meanings; the word can even change meanings as one is using it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

> For example....Huntinfool and I live pretty close to each other. We have very similar views on a lot of things. However, we don't go to the same church. Why? Because there are preferences that I have. That is not to say that my church is any better/worse than his. Just different in some areas that cause me to feel more comfortable at my own



You just don't like the drums you heathen!


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> I already gave the answer to that question...got the debate about the timing of the writing of Revelation.  Believe it was page 3 or 4



Does the Bible teach that it is all sufficient?

Most ardent fans of sola scriptura use II Tim. 3:15-17 in support of their position however is that what the passage really teaches? 

As I argued in #115 was Paul talking about the New Testament?  He specifically references the scriptures.
“…… from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make the wise unto salvation….”    So we know Paul was not speaking of the New Testament,  and as I noted later in that same post, if Paul had meant to exclude tradition as not being profitable why did he use oral tradition in that letter?

As for the passage from the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, nowhere does it say the Bible is all sufficient, it says do not add to nor take away, from what is open for another discussion.

I believe EVERYTHING must align itself with the Scriptures and if Sola Scriptura is Biblical it will line up.  “By the voice of two or three witnesses”  I have yet to see one much less two or three, but if I look at tradition I find a few.

Remember in Mark7:7-9 where Christ makes it clear that the Pharisees have neglected the correct traditions, and how do we know they are correct, God has commanded them.  
“7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.  9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Paul admonishes the Church at Thessalonica :
2 Thessalonians 2:15  15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.  There is that pesky tradition.
Again to the church at Corinth 1 Cor 11:2 2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.  Those pesky ordinances.

Those are two “witnesses”, there are some more. 

What really strikes me is John’s statement in John 21:25 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Logic would lead us to believe that there was the same rich tradition in the followers of Christ that existed in the Jewish community after all they were Jews.

Most protestants run from tradition because of “Romaphobia” and “Pope problems” perhaps they should look at the Orthodox Church also.

I believe everything necessary for salvation is contained in the Scripture, to that end it is “all sufficient”, but a deep richness of the faith is lost if that is only as far as the nominal Christian goes.

My biggest question for those of us protestants, of which I am one, is: If we trust the Bible that was safeguarded by the Roman and Orthodox church and handed down to us, why do we not trust them with tradition and worship as it was handed down?


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 28, 2010)

Let's look at Acts 17 where Paul searched the *scripture* to see if what was being taught was Godly. Do you believe God spoke to man and told him to write it down so later men's opinions would be the guiding teaching ??? 

Anything in the NT scripture that negated the OT was not considered to be from God. The Salvation theme is clear from Genesis to Revelation. 

My biggest question for those of us protestants, of which I am one, is: If we trust the Bible that was safeguarded by the Roman and Orthodox church and handed down to us, why do we not trust them with tradition and worship as it was handed down? 

1) I don't get where they "Safeguarded" the Bible...God preserved His word and He didn't need a man or a "Church" to do it.
2) God says we are to worship in spirit and truth but says nothing about a Churches tradition.
3) The Jews revered the traditions given by God in His Word. Look at how they  Scribes and Pharisee's are described in scripture. They wanted people to follow their traditons even when they conflicted with scripture. And now you believe we should do the same thing with the Catholic Church ???

Sorry God doesn't need any demonination/Church... and if His Love Letter to us is not enough than there is something wrong. Jesus denounced man's "religion" during His life on earth. My God is big enough to preserve His word without traditions or man's teachings added on. Read up on the Mormon Church...they say many of the things you have said here. Do we need to add their traditions and books also ??

Later....RW


----------



## Big7 (Apr 28, 2010)

Madman said:


> My biggest question for those of us protestants, of which I am one, is: If we trust the Bible that was safeguarded by the Roman and Orthodox church and handed down to us, why do we not trust them with tradition and worship as it was handed down?



Mine too...


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> Let's look at Acts 17 where Paul searched the *scripture* to see if what was being taught was Godly. Do you believe God spoke to man and told him to write it down so later men's opinions would be the guiding teaching ???
> 
> Anything in the NT scripture that negated the OT was not considered to be from God. The Salvation theme is clear from Genesis to Revelation.
> 
> ...


 
So why do you think God used the Catholic Church to protect and preserve His Love Letter?

Was His Love Letter enough for you? Did you just picked up a Bible one day? Had no one ever told you anything about it, what it said or what it might have to say? Where you a blank slate the first time you read the Bible? Did all the doctrines and correct teachings come directly from the pages of the Bible to you? Or did you have Godly people in your life that taught, their understanding of the Bible as they had been taught it?

I have never learned or been taught anything by the Catholic Church that has been against what was taught in Sacred Scripture. I have never been told "Well, Sacred Tradition is more important on this matter, even if it conflicts with Sacred Scripture"


----------



## Big7 (Apr 28, 2010)

Madman said:


> I don't believe Luther had a problem with the Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, I believe his main point of contention was with the newer traditions.



No.. He had a problem with King James having him drawn and quarted..


----------



## Dominic (Apr 28, 2010)

Also in case you missed it, I had a question for you a few pages back...


> Inthegarge said:
> 
> 
> > First, the early church was encouraged to make copies of the letters and spread them around. That is why so many copies are available today to compare. The Scribes had been doing this for the OT for years prior to that.
> ...



If you could answer the part in red. I have never seen documentation on this matter, but it seems to be a real sticking point for people. Like something they repeat because they heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 29, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> You just don't like the drums you heathen!



It ain't the drums....its the drummer


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 29, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> But, Luther did add the German word "allein" (alone) to scripture.  A word NOT originally found in the greek texts of Romans 3:28




Dawg...kinda forgot about this and it was bothering me last night...so here's the response.

This is how Rom 3:28 reads in my Bible (NAS).

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

No Alone.

Then, you've got Eph 2:8-9

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 

 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.



I know...I'm rehashing old stuff....I just wanted to show you that Luther has nothing to do with it and that he didn't "add to scripture."


----------



## gtparts (Apr 29, 2010)

I've observed this train wreck in slow motion for several days now and I must say I am surprised at the civility exercised. I suspect that BH would have had this closed down in less than 12 hrs.

You might ask why I consider this a train wreck. At this juncture, it appears that nothing will be resolved, and while everyone will survive, the remains of the train will block the track just like all the other times a train has traveled this track.

Sorry fellows, but I see the issue as a question of where (or when) one draws the line between the traditions that Scripture supports and those that post-date the scriptures. I believe when Scripture speaks of tradition, it means already established traditions that are consistent with the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe that the apostles ever instituted new traditions. In fact, there is ample evidence that they actively fought against anyone tacking on extraneous rules, regulations, rites, and rubbish that impede the spread and personal application of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"His yoke is easy and His burden is light."

When encountering any theological plank of a churches' platform, I have found it to be one of three (maybe five) effects.

 They are: 

(1) supported directly by Scripture and beneficial.

(2) denied directly by Scripture and detrimental.

(3) neither directly supported nor denied by Scripture and
 ...      (3a) beneficial or
 ...      (3b) benign or
 ...      (3c) detrimental

In any event, a category (3) is unnecessary, even if beneficial and certainly to be avoided if detrimental.

As a Protestant, I see all three type (3) categories present in Catholic Sacred Tradition. I also see all three in every Protestant denomination I have examined. But, even if we eliminate (3c) from our churches, I see our preoccupation with (3a) and (3b) as "majoring on the minors".

There does seem to be another special category and that would be the plank that allows participation by some in a particular thing and yet denies participation by others. In such cases, if it is Scriptural, I play by God's rules. 

In fact, I always try to play by God's rules.

Grace and peace to all Christians, regardless of denominational leanings.

gtparts


----------



## Madman (Apr 29, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> Let's look at Acts 17 where Paul searched the *scripture* to see if what was being taught was Godly. Do you believe God spoke to man and told him to write it down so later men's opinions would be the guiding teaching ???
> 
> What I think is irrelevant.    Just as Paul did, I search the Scriptures and nowhere does it say that it is ALL sufficient for teaching the faith.  I have shown where the Scriptures do admonish us to hold on to those traditions.  If you discard them it is at your own peril
> 
> ...



I hope you realize that the "just me and my Bible" attitude lead to the Jw's and the Mormons and many other cults.

God's Peace


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 29, 2010)

Madman said:


> If you study a little church history ...



Good advice for everybody, regardless of church affiliation.


----------



## Big7 (Apr 29, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Dawg...kinda forgot about this and it was bothering me last night...so here's the response.
> 
> This is how Rom 3:28 reads in my Bible (NAS).
> 
> ...



Really... You must have missed these tiny bits?

For more GO HERE:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/faith_vs_works.htm

What does the Bible say about "works" and its role in salvation? 

Mat 7:16-20 Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evil doers.' Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock"

Matt: 19:21 Then someone came to him and said "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life...[Jesus said] go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven...When the young man heard this word he went away grieving, for he had many possessions...

Mat 25:40 When you have done this to the least of my brothers you did it unto me

Mat 25:40-43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Mt 25:15-28 Check out the parable of the 10 talents. 

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done. 

Lk 19:6 "So he (Zacchaeus) hurried down and was happy to welcome him (Jesus) ... 8 Zachaeus stood there and said to the Lord "Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much." 9 Then Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house"

Many Evangelicals point to Rom 3:28 "...We are justified by faith apart from the works prescribed by the law." Catholics think it important to look at the entire passage in context. Paul did not only say "...apart from works." He said "...apart from the works prescribed by the law."

 The word prescribed infers that it was written down. If you asked a Jew back then what the law was, he would say "the Torah" which was the written law (1st five books of the Bible). To me these "works prescribed in the law" such as circumcision seem quite distinct from Christian works of Charity. This is made clearer in the next verse "or is God the God of the Jews only is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also" (Rom 3:29) The next two verses drives this home. "Since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised (Jews) on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through their faith" (Rom 3:30)." It seems that Paul is talking on this circumcision issue and the other trappings of the old Jewish law that were barriers to Gentiles. It seems to have nothing to do with works of Christian Charity.

Gal 6:2 "Bear one another's burdens and this way you fulfill the law of Christ."

Gal 6:4 "For all must test their own work."

1 Cor 9:16 "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel" 

James 5:20 "you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinners soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins"

James 2:14-16 "What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you. If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."
James goes on to hammer this home in the next few verses. Most of my protestant friends intuitively know this and they work hard to serve the Lord.

1 Cor 9:16 "for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the Gospel" To proclaim the Gospel is an action. This is a work.

_*Jer. 17:10; 32:19 God will evaluate every man according to his deeds.*_


----------



## Big7 (Apr 29, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> I would agree with that as well.
> 
> But, Luther did add the German word "allein" (alone) to scripture.  A word NOT originally found in the greek texts of Romans 3:28



Yes.. He did.

Have you ever been in a discussion in which it was asserted that Martin Luther added words to the Bible?

Here Are Some "choice" comments from the depths of cyber-space:

Read all about that and more HERE:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html


----------



## Big7 (Apr 29, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> Where in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura?




It does not.

Links inside this link will explain that away, With Scripture 

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura asserts that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian religion.  It's one of the cornerstones of Protestantism.  This page contains links to articles which examine this doctrine from a Catholic perspective. 

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct1_solascript.html

Pretty simple huh?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 29, 2010)

Has anyone even tried to answer this



> I am curious to know if you can provide any proof, some document, that the Church restricted the Scriptures, other then obvious heretical versions, that even the Protestants rejected.



It has been a day and a half


----------



## Madman (Apr 29, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Has anyone even tried to answer this
> 
> 
> 
> It has been a day and a half



Count me out I don't know of a single one.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 29, 2010)

Desert Soldier said:


> Where in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> For the one billionth and one time...Catholics only pray TO God and Jesus. We ask for intercession from Mary and the saints.



How do you ask for intecession from someone dead and in heaven without praying, By cell phobne or CB radio ?


----------



## Dominic (Apr 30, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> How do you ask for intecession from someone dead and in heaven without praying, By cell phobne or CB radio ?


 
The same way you have ask for prayers on here, when tragedy has been in your life.


----------



## Dominic (Apr 30, 2010)

gparts,

What are you looking to resolve here? 

If even one person has a better understanding of another through this discussion, then I have accomplished my goal. Lowjack started thread as a bait hoping to get a good fight out of it, how can I guess this, he has put the people who could answer the question he presented on "ignore" and flaunted it. He is not a honest broker is this debate even if he started it. What did Lowjack get instead, well he received civil discussion among the board members. All the while posting comments to people he has placed on his ignore list.


Now lets get on with it...

Everybody Let's Dance

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9RIoiVhXpcU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9RIoiVhXpcU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## tell sackett (Apr 30, 2010)

Big7 said:


> Really... You must have missed these tiny bits?
> 
> For more GO HERE:
> http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/faith_vs_works.htm
> ...


Rom4:4-5 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5)But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justified the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Rom.11:6"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Eph.2:10"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." 

"Unto(or for, whichever you prefer)", not"by". Jesus cried on the cross "It is finished!" There is nothing we can or have to add to it, and I thank God for that.


----------

