The image of La Virgen de Guadalupe.

The URL: http://herenciacristiana.com/museo/guadalupe4big.jpg

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004

Answers

Aparitions of Our Lady in the "Ask Jesus" forum.

A related website with more images of other aparitions.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

What's the purpose of this rod?

Do you have an opinion or comentary?

To me it is just so pagan....and cannot be of God.

He already sent His ultimate sign in Jesus Christ. Nothing more is needed. It is finished!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.

You've proved my motives, again. All I have to do is post and the thread will become filled with comments and opinions. You're the first on this thread to make a comment.

If you had been following the thread in the Catholic Forum, you would have understood my reasons for posting here. I'm not gonna make any comments for or against the "painting". I have my opinion, but I'd rather hear everyone else's opinions.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

Let me just make a comment that might clarify things a little bit for the protestants here. The apparitions that have been approved for the church are in the category that is called "private revelation", that is they are not in the public deposit of the faith and we are not compelled to believe them or what they say. That is not to say that they may not be profitable in our spiritual lives. We do need to exercise some caution in interpreting them though.

If I am wrong here, I hope another Catholic will correct me, but that is my understanding of what the church teaches on such things.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.

That's my understanding too James. Well said.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 29, 2004.

rod--you had to know that posting this on a forum that is not Catholic would only serve to flame those who find the apparitions biblically offensive.

No surprises here.

No--I rarely check in at the Catholic site..

But posting links with no personal message or commentary is, I believe, not condusive to discussion.

What did you expect?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.

That's a pretty dangerous policy in my opinion, James.

Either the apparition is from God and should be for all to believe-- or it is not from God and should be rejected.

If it were a personal visitation for just a few people--then why does everyone know about them?

These apparitions give messages of universal interest. A personal revelation should be, well, personal.

You need to determine if this Mary is from God. And your measuring rod should be the Scriptures themselves.

I doubt you'll find Scriptural support for them.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.

Faith. This is a "Christian" forum, not a non-Catholic forum. Count the number of Catholics here and have a look at the category this topic is in--"Catholic Issues".

Why did you post in this Catholic Thread, Faith?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

This is for Faith.

We are still allowed to post here. We no longer have to sit at the rear; we can sit just about anywhere we wish.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

Faith-

You may apologize at leisure. All major credit cards are acceptable.

:)

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

Faith--"What did you expect? "

I expect what I've received. What did you expect?

We could elaborate on certain issues surrounding the "image". Or, you can feel offended. Don't click on the Catholic section of this forum if it makes you feel any better, Faith.

Elpidio? Is this a non-Catholic only forum now?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

nice thread Rod!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 29, 2004.

rod--are you instigating for a reason?

Was there a point to your thread and could you please elaborate?

It seems you have a private thing going and you have dragged me in with your bait.

Why?

I am merely asking that when you make a post--you include a reason, purpose or some words to clarify.

I am not even responding to the image you posted. I think *so what?* about the image. What is your meaning about posting the image in the first place?

And of coure you can expect me to clear up any confusion over demonic visitations---every time! Whether it is Elpidio's visions or your Marian apparitions..

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.

Pure logic, Faith.

Look what the "alleged" aparition engendered in history and religion. It just appears and people talk, galk, walk, and believe. You made a comment to this post. I made no inferences, just a post with a link to the Image. I didn't say that it was true or false. I just posted. This thread can have a nuetral, positive, or negative tone to the Image. Some are offended, curios, or inspired by the Image.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

James made a nice post about how the Church views such things.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

rod..

You didn't say *what* was true or false?

All I saw was a picture.

Oh forget it...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.

Forget what, Faith? You didn't say what to forget.

Faith. This is difficult for some. There isn't a guide to follow in this thread. It is only a link and a freedom to post words. You chose to answer within the limits of your own guidance; that's ok. But, I do detect that you are at a loss. All that needed to be done was to click on the link, see the image, and either decide to make comments or not. Some made positive remarks while others did not. Ok, maybe more will make comments now that you've generated some kind of guidelines.

...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

Why don't you start the ball rolling or something rod--since it's your post.

Nothing difficult about it for me.

I saw the second post you made to yourself--where you elaborate and seem to be trying to stir up some controversey about Marian apparitions.

You know very well how I feel about them.

I think they're spooky and eerie.

I also think that they are not the real Mary.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.

Ok, Faith. You seem to have the wrong opinion about my Marian views. So, especially for you:

1. I believe in the facts that Mary accepted the role of being the mother to Jesus through the Immaculate and Virgin conception of Christ. Immaculate meaning without sin and Virgin meaning without the physical nature of normal conception.

2. I believe that Mary gave birth only to Jesus and no other children. Scriptures cannot prove either way because man is confused in his interpretations.

3. Scriptures show evidence of Mary's intercession. Mary is not the only intercessor. Hey, you can also intercede and petition.

4. I believe that Mary is in Heaven right now as we speak.

5. Mary's ascendsion is irrelevant for me. Hey, I've get up to Heaven on Harley's , so what, we are there.

6. I think the aparitions of Holy people do manifest themselves in the minds of believers. I have never seen any aparitions. Should I question by faith based on visions? I don't know. What have you seen, Faith?

7. Does Mary play a demolic role in the history of civilization? That depends on who is making the claims of those sightings and their motives for publicizing those claims. Anyone can be diabolical.

8. Do people worship Mary? Some do and some don't. Do I? I do not. On the other hand, I don't go belittling her as like the old crazy aunt in the attic. She is real and significant. Her role has a powerful impact in our faith and Salvation.

9. Do I keep artwork and pictures of Mary? Yes, but, unlike the U.S. currency of presidents' images on them, her image is of more meaning and value to me as a Christian.

10. Ooga--booga!

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

ooops...

5. Mary's ascendsion is irrelevant for me. How she moved up to Heaven doesn't matter. If we go up using Harley's, so what, at least we made it to Heaven.

7. Does Mary play a [demonic] role in the history of civilization? That depends on who is making the claims of those sightings and their motives for publicizing those claims. Anyone can be diabolical.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Do you all keep images of the Virgin Mary in your homes?

Why should we keep such artwork/pictures of persons near Christ?

For me, artwork has the same effects of telling the story of Christ, Christianity, and the Salvation plan. Hey, we form images in our mind's eye anyway when we read the Holy Bible.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

1. I believe in the facts that Mary accepted the role of being the mother to Jesus through the Immaculate and Virgin conception of Christ. Immaculate meaning without sin and Virgin meaning without the physical nature of normal conception.

You are aware that the *immaculate* part of that Catholic doctrine has nothing to do with Jesus., right? The Immaculate part has to do with Mary. Supposedly she herself was also born without sin. I would wager a guess that to support that silliness--one would have to then invent a doctrine that says Mary's Mother was also born without sin-- and so on and so on. In any event--it is totally unbiblical.

2. I believe that Mary gave birth only to Jesus and no other children. Scriptures cannot prove either way because man is confused in his interpretations.

Correction rod--only the Catholic church is confused about it.

3. Scriptures show evidence of Mary's intercession. Mary is not the only intercessor. Hey, you can also intercede and petition.

The Bible reveals that only Christ is our Mediator.

4. I believe that Mary is in Heaven right now as we speak.

5. Mary's ascendsion is irrelevant for me. Hey, I've get up to Heaven on Harley's , so what, we are there.

So are all believers who belong to God.

6. I think the aparitions of Holy people do manifest themselves in the minds of believers. I have never seen any aparitions. Should I question by faith based on visions? I don't know. What have you seen, Faith?

I don't believe that any of our dearly departed can appear to us. They are either dead--waiting for their judgement...or they are dead in Christ and so are with Him.

The Bible tells us that only two witnesses will return to the earth, and this is during the time of Tribulation.

7. Does Mary play a demonic role in the history of civilization? That depends on who is making the claims of those sightings and their motives for publicizing those claims. Anyone can be diabolical.

The true Mary does not--of course.

8. Do people worship Mary? Some do and some don't. Do I? I do not. On the other hand, I don't go belittling her as like the old crazy aunt in the attic. She is real and significant. Her role has a powerful impact in our faith and Salvation.

Well I agree that her role was wonderful. She was a truly blessed human being. Biblically speaking--very little is actually said about her.

9. Do I keep artwork and pictures of Mary? Yes, but, unlike the U.S. currency of presidents' images on them, her image is of more meaning and value to me as a Christian.

Who do you have more art work of--Jesus or Mary? That should tell you a little something about your focus-- right there.

5. Mary's ascendsion is irrelevant for me. How she moved up to Heaven doesn't matter. If we go up using Harley's, so what, at least we made it to Heaven.

There is no revelation about such a descending.....it copies Jesus-- and ultimately--she usurps Jesus' place.

7. Does Mary play a [demonic] role in the history of civilization? That depends on who is making the claims of those sightings and their motives for publicizing those claims. Anyone can be diabolical.

Especially Satan...he is the greatest deceiver.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.

Yes, there is only one mediator--Jesus Christ. I tend to understand the wedding at Cana as an example of Mary's intercession to Jesus, not to God. We can petition, too. But, we can get into semantics when we realize that Jesus is God. But, I do understand the difference between "intercessor" and "mediator".

Jesus is the focal point in my house. Mary's images are always subordinate to Christ's. But, I do have a larger quantity of pictures of Mary. Hey! I like the styles and artwork; that was my reasons for have so many. Do I pray to Mary? Only when I was in catechism--"Hail, Mary".

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

"Well I agree that her role was wonderful. She was a truly blessed human being. Biblically speaking--very little is actually said about her. "

Actually, much is said about Mary in the other gospels (not included in the Holy Bible).

The Immaculate Conception is attributed to Mary, yes. And to think that Mary was born without sin, meaning that her conception was without sin, may seem viable. But, I was referring to Jesus' birth. His conception was without sin and his birth was a virgin birth. It is also difficult to believe that Mary remained a virgin and eternally so. Many things in life are difficult.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

BTW, I do believe Mary was "ever virgin". It is very possible and probable.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Faith, you didn't respond to my 10th point.

10. ooga--booga.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Faith,

You said, You are aware that the *immaculate* part of that Catholic doctrine has nothing to do with Jesus., right? The Immaculate part has to do with Mary.

You are correct that the immaculate coception is about Mary being conceived without the stain of original sin and in a state of grace. However, Mary's immaculate conception in Catholic doctrine has everything to do with Jesus. It would be meaningless without her relationship to Jesus and her faith in God's promise. Her Immaculate Conception is based on the merits of Jesus' sacrifice. She was most blessed because of this special gift of son to mother. God chose her from among all women to bear His son so that we might be saved, and she had faith in that promise, perfectly obeying God's word.

Supposedly she herself was also born without sin. I would wager a guess that to support that silliness--one would have to then invent a doctrine that says Mary's Mother was also born without sin-- and so on and so on. In any event--it is totally unbiblical.

Others may seek to invent such silly reasoning, but that would just show that they do not understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Concpetion. Mary was the recipient of a special gift from God. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the sinlessness of Mary's mother. It has everything to do with her being chosen as the mother of God's only begotten son.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 30, 2004.

But Andy--the theory goes that in order for Jesus to born without sin- -His mother would have had to be sinless herself. This of course in not Scriptural.

But doesn't it stand to that reason then that if Mary was born sinless--surely her mother had to also be free from sin? Where do you stop a notion like that?

Or a better question is--why did someone have to start such a silly notion in the first place?

Nowhere in the Scriptures do we read that Mary herself was sinless. In fact--we read that no one is sinless except Jesus. There is no special claus that reads *except Mary of course--she was perfect*.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.

If the Marian theology is an inspired work for man, it is because of all those pre-existing pagan myths surrounding the belief in fertility goddesses and sex proxies. In order to destroy those pagan beliefs, the Christian belief had to be defined and clarified in regards to Mary. Mary isn't a goddess anything .

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Hi Faith,

But Andy--the theory goes that in order for Jesus to born without sin- -His mother would have had to be sinless herself. This of course in not Scriptural.

But doesn't it stand to that reason then that if Mary was born sinless--surely her mother had to also be free from sin? Where do you stop a notion like that?

I hope you didn't get this line of reasoning from Catholics. I see your point and agree its not Scriptural. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary had to be born sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless. Jesus is God. God can do whatever he wants. He is not restricted to being born of a sinless woman. The Church does not use this line of reasoning (as far as I know) because, (as you pointed out) it leads to an unending cycle of sinless mothers. If any Catholics have heard that line of reasoning for the Immaculate Conception from Catholic theologians or apologists, please let me know.

It was certainly "fitting" that the Mother of the Saviour of the world be conceived without sin, but not "necessary." Just as it was "fitting" that God command the men who carried the ark of the covenant to be sanctified. Just as it was fitting for the ark to be made of incorruptible wood. But it certainly was not necessary, except that it was commanded by God. Would the word of God, the bread from heaven, and the symbol of God's priesthood have been any less holy if sinners carried the ark, or the ark was made of rotten wood? Certainly not. But the sanctity of the carriers and the incorruptibility of the wood were real physical symbols of God's holiness. It is what God desired as a means to be with His people.

In Catholic theology, original sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace. This means we are born corrupt because we lack sanctifying grace, which is friendship with God. We must be "born again" in baptism to be infused with this grace by the Holy Spirit. Mary was saved by God’s grace through the merits of the cross that was yet to come in time. She was conceived in a state of sanctifying grace, unlike the rest of us. Jesus is sinless because he is God and God is the font of all holiness.

How could Mary have had such faith, and perfect obedience to God's will unless she was in a state of grace? Can we have faith and do works pleasing to God without God's grace? If anyone is a model of someone who is "saved", it's Mary. Look at her response to God's invitation and how she replies to Elizabeth's greeting. Look at her simple faith all the way to the cross when all but one of Christ's apostles deserted him. Abraham and the patriarchs had faith, but humble Mary was the prototypical disciple, in my opinion. She was truly blessed. Even the word used by the angel Gabriel to address Mary is unique in how it describes the state of grace she was in.

You can argue whether the new ark of the covenant is Mary or Jesus' body. The point is, Mary being immaculately conceived is really a gift from God, through His son, and is a sign of the grace He bestowed on her as the mother of His son. It is a sign of the promise He makes to all of us if we love and obey Him in faith, as Mary did. The immaculate conception is not based on the idea that Christ (being pure holiness) didn't want to be tainted by a vessel soiled from sin. If anything, we see from Scripture that Christ is the one who sanctifies sinners.

Please, if I'm saying anything that's wrong as far as Catholic taching goes, correct me.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 30, 2004.

Andy.,

I am glad that you see how silly the argument about Mary having to be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus is. That is the reason given by many Catholicis for such a doctrine.

Human reasoning should never take the place of sound Scripture. The Bible says that no one is perfect except for God. Of course this means Jesus as well, since he is God in the flesh--and was born sinless and lived a prefect, sinless life.

There is no indication in the Scriptures that Mary too--lived a perfect and sinless life. Not at all. The Bible says no one has....but God.

Your explanation--though nicer than the one I usually hear--is still nothing more that human logic and reasoning. Can you show me in the Scriptures where it says that Mary was born sinless and perfect?

You are right that such a circumstance is not necessary. Mary was able to follow God according to her faith in the same way Abraham did. It is the same thing for all of us who believe.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Faith,

There is no indication in the Scriptures that Mary too--lived a perfect and sinless life. Not at all. The Bible says no one has....but God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "perfect." Is "perfect" equivalent to "sinless", or is there a difference? You use it as if there is a difference, and I would agree. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived in a state of grace with God. Catholics also believe that Mary was granted the grace to remain in that state of grace throughout her life and thus remain sinless. As far as perfect, it depends on your definition. The Immaculate Conception doesn't mean that she was "perfect" as Jesus is perfect. She was always in grace, but not perfect unless you take it to mean the same thing as sinless. Think of Mary as being "saved," but saved more completely than any of us. She was also given the grace of God to avoid all those other sins that any normal "saved" person would fall into due to temptation. In other words, she was set aside for God's plan from the moment of her existence like a prophet of old, but even more so. She didn't just bear the Word of God in her heart like Elijah and Isaiah did, but she bore Him in the flesh. The same flesh that would be crucified and die for our sins.

Your explanation--though nicer than the one I usually hear--is still nothing more that human logic and reasoning. Can you show me in the Scriptures where it says that Mary was born sinless and perfect?

Can't show perfect. But then perfect (as God is perfect) is not part of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Mary is still human, but a human that has been blessed in an exceptional way by God. As far as sinless (remember it equates to a state of grace in Catholic teaching), the best Biblical support is the greeting of the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28. Protestant and Catholic scholars have argued what the use of the Greek word (translated as "full of grace" or "highly favored daughter") implies. I am quoting the Catholic viewpoint from a Catholic apologetics web site. I've seen the alternate viewpoint and personally found it lacking. I don't want to turn this into an argument over the Greek. Just provide the Biblical basis of the Immaculate Conception that you asked for. As with a lot of Scriptural passages, we will likely disagree on the meaning and implications of the passage. You can accept it or not based on the sources you accept and their viewpoint on what the Greek means and what it implies.

Here is the quote:

"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 a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but 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 to have been called "full of grace." quoted from Catholic Answers, “Immaculate Conception and Assumption” (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001)

This is probably the strongest Scriptural support for the doctrine that I know of. This is what led some of the early Church Fathers to believe in the Immaculate Conception, even if that isn't what they called it back then. Maybe one of the other Catholics on this board can provide better evidence or explain it better than I can.

You are right that such a circumstance is not necessary. Mary was able to follow God according to her faith in the same way Abraham did. It is the same thing for all of us who believe.

But for Mary, it is not the "same thing" as for the rest of us. None of us were chosen to actually bear and give birth to our own Saviour and the Saviour of all humanity. We weren't chosen to raise Him as a child. Mary was chosen in a unique and special way that is even more blessed by grace than Abraham, our father in faith. The faith and the grace she was given to obey God was all given to her by Him. Is it so hard to believe that God would have blessed the woman He chose to bear and raise His only begotten son with grace beyond the average human being? That's what I think Luke 1:28 implies. You can also see it in Mary's faith, actions, and quiet humility in both Luke and John's gospels.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

I don't know Andy--too much catholic rhetoric for me.

Nowhere in the Scriptures are we told that Mary was conceived without sin. That is what the *Immaculate Conception* means.

Only someone without sin can be perfect. That is why Christ was perfect. If we could follow the Law of God--we would be perfect.

But the Bibles says that for man this is impossible. No one is good except God.

Jesus was conceived free from sin and thus led a perfect life. We know this because the Scriptures tell us so.

When I read that Mary was "full of grace" I think that this is pointing to Jesus who is inside her. Jesus is the grace God offers to all who will receive Him.

Just like the Bible is clear that Jesus was conceived without sin--I would ask for the same "clear" Scriptural support in order to believe that the same is true of Mary.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Faith,

Jesus was conceived without sin because he is God. Very different from the Immaculate Conception. Mary is human, but was blessed by God in a unique and special way.

As I said, there are different viewpoints on what "full of grace" implies. I think that verse and its meaning is clear enough. We have our differences of opinion (like on Mt 23:35 and the OT canon). I'll leave it at that.

Sorry for the Catholic rhetoric. I just wanted to clear up the statement you made that the Immaculate Conception has "nothing to do with Jesus." For a Catholic, it would be meaningless without Jesus. That's all.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

Faith,

One final point and I'll let you have the last word.

You said, When I read that Mary was "full of grace" I think that this is pointing to Jesus who is inside her. Jesus is the grace God offers to all who will receive Him.

But Gabriel said this before Jesus was conceived in her womb. So how could he have been pointing to Jesus inside of her?

Here is the text I refer to (from the Douay-Rheims translation):

Luk 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace [Gk. kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Luk 1:29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.

Luk 1:30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

Luk 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

Luk 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Luk 1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

I wasn't thinking of that verse but actually your Catholic prayer Hail Mary full of grace...etc..

I should have pointed out that that's not in the Bible either--but that is always what it meant to me.

Jesus is the grace God offers us. Because it is through Jesus that we are forgiven.

My Bible reads like this:

Luke 1:26-28

In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

So as you can see--nothing in this about being conceived herself free from sin. She is blessed and favored for this task. But there are many characters in the Bible who were blessed and favored for other tasks.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Does one get faith by seeing an apparition or by "hearing the word of God"???

Moderator,

It is obvious from reading through the different posts in this thread that one side has posted the link to the picture above only to cause trouble.

In my opinion, if they want Catholic commentary on an image, I would like to suggest that they comment on a Catholic web site. It appears more and more that this is what they wish for this site to become for their posts have increased quite a bit since the previous moderator has departed for a few months.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 01, 2004.

You are right Kevin--

But it is a discussion board where all can post.

I resigned as moderator because I could be a part of what was happening here, not so much because of the Catholic posts as much as because Elpodio was freely preaching Jesus is not God. he posts his visions and dreams as though they were supportable and he was doing it is Spanish, so that I couldn't even monitor what was being said.

But yes--this site is being over-run by the Catholic opinion.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Moderator,

Then, you will be next in line for censoring. We can't your visions and talks with Jesus posted here, either. Let's not forget those prophecies.

Kevin, if it makes you feel any better, I'm not sure if those aparitions are real, either. My intensions are to bring out the truth, not to stir things up. The truth does have a tendency to stir things up on its own. Like I've said, "I've never seen an aparition". To me, they don't exist, but to some they do. I'd like to hear what those people have to say. You can always take your axe and have at it after it is posted. You know; axe the blasphemy out of it, if it is there to remove.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

Kevin Walker, just realize this is one of the few instances you get a chance to debate Catholics.

Make the best of it.

faith already has done her part. She is even enjoying it!!!

As for this becoming a Catholic forum???? Not as long as you guys do something about it.

Max is Orthodox-leaning. You and Luke are Churches of Christ, faith born again?, Laurent is non-religious,...

Rod and Jim are quasi-Catholic, Gail and Emily Catholic conversion from Protestant, Ian is trational Catholic as is Jake and Emerald, and I am Christian Yahwist former Catholic Novus Ordo. Paul M. is Novus Ordo Charismatic. Besides we have Wiccans, Atheists,Muslims,Lutherans,...also posting.

So who is truly a majority ( 900 million/1040 million Catholics worlwide) Novus Ordo Catholic in this forum?Paul H. But he doesn't post now.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

rod is a baptized Catholic trying to return to his Church, but is a self-proclaimed "quasi-Catholic" with "free thinker" tendencies. He has also done some time in the Protestant arenas.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

Elpidio

for my small part, i do not agree with yr theology but i appreciate that, just as DO had begun to do before he was called away, you are a pretty decent moderator.

i think that DO has passed the baton to someone who will carry it with the same dignity. you were responsible for young David's "training". you cajoled him in the right direction.

in the ensuing debacle, just remember that.

you are the arbitrator and you DO enjoy our trust.

that comes from someone who agrees has rarely agreed with anyone that has ever posted here.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 01, 2004.

Kevin have a look at the way the Catholic forum reacts to any talk against those aparitions. Look at the way this forum talks about those aparitions.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

Thanks, Ian.

Rod and Jim and I have been coresponding for over a year and a half. So they know already that I opene to what others have to say. Not once I told them to turn against the Catholic Church. I let people make their own chi=oices in life. Even Laurent knows I never tried to convert him. That's not my job.

I think Ian, Kevin will be priviliged to see the the types of Catholics there are. Catholics are not a monolithic block.

So Catholics of all persuasions are able to also post here because in most Catholic forums, Novus Ordo don't let them.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

If I were to post my views in the Catholic forum, I'd be in hot water . I'd rather not rock the boat. Their views are unchangeable. My views are gradually taking form.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

Faith,

"Highly favored one" and "full of grace" are two English translations of the same Greek word. Supposedly they mean the same thing. Just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in the exchange.

Whether or not you agree that it implies the Immaculate Conception, the lines of the prayer:

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb"

are directly from the bible.

I hope that still counts as giving you the last word :)

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

I don't think you are right about that Andy.

Could you cite the exact book, chapter and verse--where you think that would be?

I know I could never find it.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Kevin,

You said, In my opinion, if they want Catholic commentary on an image, I would like to suggest that they comment on a Catholic web site. It appears more and more that this is what they wish for this site to become for their posts have increased quite a bit since the previous moderator has departed for a few months.

I think the Catholic voices may have increased a bit even before David left. I don't think any of the Catholics here want this board to be another Catholic board. I, for one am here to learn more of everyone's faith as well as share my own.

If this is really a Protestant board, let me know and I'll tone down the "Catholic rhetoric" since I'm really a guest. I'd expect the same for any non-Catholics who visit the Catholic board.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

Faith,

Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured [also translated as "full of grace"], the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [some texts read "and blessed is the fruit of your womb"]

Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Catholics add at the end of Elazabeth's exclamation ",Jesus."

We can discuss the biblical support for the rest of the verses in the "Hail Mary" prayer, but those are the ones I specifically mentioned above.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

Oh--

I thought you meant the exact words of the prayer the Hail Mary were directly quoted from the Scriptures.

Sorry--I misunderstood.

I know that the whole prayer is not from the Scriptures.

The *Holy Mary, Mother of God--pray for our sinners now and at the hour of our death*, part--is definately not biblical.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

The "Mother of God" part certainly is. I'm sure we've gone around on this one before though. I'll reference an old thread if I can find it so we don't rehash the same old arguments.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

You can quote the words *Mary, Mother of God* from Scriptures?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Doesn't Lord mean God here?

Also, if Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, then she's the mother of God. The term was defined long time ago (Council of Ephesus, 4 century AD?) because some people decided that Jesus wasn't really God.

So the Church had to infallibly define that Jesus was God. Thus, Mary of the Mother of God.

You can argue whether the term can be misunderstood, but if you believe Jesus is God, then the title is accurate.

Is this line of discussion starting to sound familiar?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

That's Mary is the Mother of God, not of.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

Clearly the verse is refering to the baby in mary's womb who is Messiah Jesus.

No one denies that Mary is the mother of Jesus or that Jesus is God.

We just have a problem with the idea that a creature could be the mother of God the Father.

Clearly the verse was a revelation as to who Jesus was--and not so much about who Mary is.

I don't think God has a Mother--to be honest.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Faith, Catholics simply believe that Mary is "Mother of God" referring to Jesus, not that she is Mother of God the Father.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

I never saw it described as such by the Catholic before Emily.

As a matter-of-fact, we had quite a thread going once where we really argued about this the Catholics in the thread were unanimous that Mary is the Mother of God. I was the only one specifying that mary is the Mother of Jesus only...and the human aspect of him only as well.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.

Faith, Mary is the Mother of God precisely because she is the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is God. You have spent much time trying to prove to Elpidio that Jesus is God, and now why do you wish to undermine your own argument about Jesus? If Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of Jesus, then Mary is the Mother of God. It's logical. Catholics do not say that Mary is Mother of God the Father, but only of Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity. She is also spouse of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit came upon her, and she became pregnant with Jesus.

Here is the CCC on this:

495 Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord".144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos).145

Notice that nowhere do you see here that Mary is the Mother of God the Father, but only of Jesus. To say that Mary is only mother of the human part of Jesus is to undermine Jesus' divinity -- do you say then that Jesus was not 100% God and 100% man at the same time? Was Jesus only partially God, and Mary only the mother of that non- God part? That does not make sense and undermines Christ's divinity.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

No Catholic ever said that Mary was the mother of God the Father, or the mother of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, she most certainly is the mother of God because her Son IS GOD. What could be more straightforward? I happen to be a biologist. If someone said my mother is the mother of a biologist, is there any possible way they could be wrong? My mother is the mother of whatever and whoever I am, because she is the mother of ME. Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, is GOD. God the Father clearly states this. (Heb 1:8) No-one who denies this fundamental truth of the faith can be considered Christian. Futher, it is impossible for a woman to give birth to "an aspect" of a person. A mother gives birth to a person, whole and entire. The Person Mary gave birth to is a divine Person - God. She is His mother. What else is there to say?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 01, 2004.

Faith,

Clearly the verse is refering to the baby in mary's womb who is Messiah Jesus.

No one denies that Mary is the mother of Jesus or that Jesus is God.

We just have a problem with the idea that a creature could be the mother of God the Father.

Amen to all that. We agree!

Emily and Paul have done a great job explaining the Catholic meaning of the title Mother of God. I didn't realize in that thread on the Catholic board (so long ago) that you understood the term Mother of God to mean Mother of God the Father. It seems we are in agreement that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. Jesus who is 100% God and 100% man. That's what Catholics hear when we hear the term Mother of God (Jesus).

Maybe if someone put together a Protestant-Catholic translation guide, we could avoid some of these arguments over the meaning of words and get to the real meat.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 02, 2004.

There is still a difference though. Otherwise there wouldn't be this argument.

While Jesus was on the earth--he was less than the Father. Mary is the Mother of this human Jesus.

But she did not give birth to God--whether you call Him the Holy Spirit, Jesus or the Father. Jesus was with God in the begining., so was the Holy Spirit--and they created everything--including Mary!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 02, 2004.

Faith,

Jesus was with God in the begining., so was the Holy Spirit--and they created everything--including Mary!

YES! "Mother of God" does not mean Mary created God! It means she gave birth to Jesus (who is God made Flesh for Trinitarians). She is the daughter of the Father, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and the mother of the Son. Three persons in one God. Each is God. Yet there is one God. That is the doctrine of the Trinity. But what you say next is confusing and seems to contradict what you believe about Jesus being God.

While Jesus was on the earth--he was less than the Father.

I think you have to be very careful about this statement, Faith. It sounds like you're saying that Jesus wasn't God while He was on earth. Wouldn't being "less than the Father" make Jesus less than God? Please clarify this statement.

Jesus always said that He and the Father were One. I think this statement undermines your arguments about Jesus being God (see Emily's post above).

What Scriptural passages are you referring to? I think this statement of yours really brings home the reason the Council of Ephesus had to clearly define that Jesus is God and that the title of "God bearer" or "Mother of God" is appropriate for Mary. I think you may be getting confused because you equate the word "God" in the title "Mother of God" with the person of Father. "Mother of God" is not about Mary creating the Trinity. It's about Mary carrying in her womb and giving birth to Jesus and about Jesus being God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 02, 2004.

Are there others besides John 14:28?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 02, 2004.

When you say, he was less than the Father are you referring to the relationship of the Son to the Father (the Father sent the Son), or that Jesus was human and not fully God?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 02, 2004.

Jesus willingly "became less that the Father" by becoming human. Humans surely are "less than God". However, in doing so, He did not relinquish His divinity in any way. Therefore He was still equal to the Father and One with the Father. This is the mystery of the Incarnation - that the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity could become that which is less than God, and yet continue to be fully God. All of the human efforts to explain away this miraculous event are based in an aversion to mystery. They say "I will believe what I can understand". However, there is much truth that no human being will ever understand, because the human mind is not capable of such understanding. That's why faith is necessary. If we could fully understand every point of Christian doctrinal truth, faith would not be necessary.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 02, 2004.

Andy..,

While Jesus was on the earth--in His earthly being--he was less that the Father. There were even some things He did not know about the endtimes. He says it Himself:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matt. 24:36

Jesus was limited here on earth. He willingly humbled Himself.

See Philippians 2:5-11

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exhalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus told His disciples that they they should be glad that he was leaving--because he was going to the Father who is greater than Him. Jesus would be greater then, too.

See John 14:28

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Even while contemplating His crucifixion--Jesus shows us that God the Father is in control. Jesus' human nature was fearful.., but ultimately--Jesus was to do as the Father willed. God the Father willed that Jesus would be that once for all time sacrifice--and Jesus is God in the flesh--but he had humbled Himself and gave up the power of God...but only while on the earth...God was still in control in heaven...I know it sounds confusing--but this is Scripture.., and I believe that God could accomplish what He says He did.

Matt. 26:39

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 02, 2004.

Thanks for so much your replies Paul and Faith. I am gaining a better understanding of the meaning of Jesus' words "the Father is greater than I."

But Faith, how does this change the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is also God? The baby that was born of Mary was our Savior, both divine and human. What you explained doesn't undermine the argument for "Mother of God" for Mary.

Let me try one more time. Let's make it real specific. Can you agree with the concepts behind the title "Mother of God"?

1. There is one God.

2. There are three persons in one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. The Son, the Word made Flesh, humbled Himself to be born of the Virgin Mary.

4. The second person of the Trinity, the Son, is fully human and fully God.

These are the beliefs inherent for Catholics in the title "Mother of God." Nothing about Mary creating God the Father. I'm not asking you to agree with the title "Mother of God." I'm just asking if you agree with the list of 4 statements of belief above.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 03, 2004.

Paul said, All of the human efforts to explain away this miraculous event are based in an aversion to mystery. They say "I will believe what I can understand". However, there is much truth that no human being will ever understand, because the human mind is not capable of such understanding. That's why faith is necessary. If we could fully understand every point of Christian doctrinal truth, faith would not be necessary.

I think these words are very true. Faith brings us to understanding, not the other way around. That's where I go wrong a lot of times. It's taken me a while before I finally learned that seeking to understand everything so that I may then believe is the wrong approach. Believing that I may then understand is the better way. Sometimes though, they seem to go hand in hand. Almost simultaneously.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 03, 2004.

The way I see it--there is no mystery revealed to us in Scripture, that is beyond our understanding. God would not be giving this to us then.

Anything that we simply cannot understand--God has not given us.

The Holy Spirit makes it possible to understand God's revelation. That is why it (the Holy Spirit) is given to us.

You can't just fall back on the claim that it is a "mystery" when your doctrine doesn't make biblical sense.

Perhaps this is why the woman on the beast is refered to as "Mystery" Babylon?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

"Mystery"? Faith? Explain the Trinity.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

The Trinity is not a mystery rod...unless you don't understand it.

Explaining it is not easy--especially to an unbeliever who is not indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

If it were such a mystery--and unable to be understood--we wouldn't know of it.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

You are a believer (?), so explain it.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

Then, explain "virgin birth". I haven't had that explained or revealed by anyone, especially God (parenthesis).

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

I think the Scriptures do a wonderful job rod.

I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are so clearly and consistently linked in Scripture that to assume that God is not of three persons makes it impossible to understand some passages. For example.....

For this reason I kneel before the Father...I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Ephesians 3:14,16,17a).

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He annointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come ( Corinthians 1:21,22).

Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus . Do not put out the Spirit's fire (1 Thess. 5:18,19). But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:3-6).

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men (1 Cor. 12:4-6).

"But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the begining God chose you to be saved through the sactifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth" ( 2 Thess. 2:13,14).

**********************************************************************

Try answering the following questions without concluding that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity:

Who raised Jesus from the dead? The Father (Romans 6:4)? The Son (John 2:19-21; 10:17,18)? The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11)? Or God (Acts 3:26; 1 Thess. 1:1,5; 4:2,8; 2 Thess. 3:5; 1 John 3:23,24)?

Who does the Bible say is God? The Father (Ephesians 4:6)? The Son (Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28)? The Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3,4)? Or God (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 45:18)?

Who created the world? The Father (Ephesians 3:9-14; 4:6)? The Son (Colossians 1:16-17;John 1:1-3)? The Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30)? Or God (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3)?

Who saves and regenerates man? 1 Peter 1:3; John 5:21; 4:14; John 3:6; Titus 3:5; or 1 John 3:9.

Who justifies man? Jeremiah 23:6;2 Cor. 5:19; Romans 5:9; 10:4; 2 Cor 5:19,21; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 5:5; Roman's 4:6; 9:33.

Who sanctifies man? Jude 1; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Exodus 31:13.

The Trinity can be logically defined, but this is partly the problem because "the infinite truth of the Godhead lies far beyond the boundries of logic, which deals with only finite truths and categories."

An infinite being, can never be fully understood by any finite person. Consider that an ant can never fully comprehend all that a human being is, even if it tried. Yet if a human could become an ant, he might be able to explain enough about what a human is so that the ant could gain something of an understanding as to what a human is. *Beyond the grasp of Human reason: (Phil. 2:5-11)

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

Well, you might want to clarify your assertions:

"If it were such a mystery--and unable to be understood--we wouldn't know of it. "

How does your assertion fit with the following?

"An infinite being, can never be fully understood by any finite person. Consider that an ant can never fully comprehend all that a human being is, even if it tried. Yet if a human could become an ant, he might be able to explain enough about what a human is so that the ant could gain something of an understanding as to what a human is. *Beyond the grasp of Human reason: (Phil. 2:5-11) "

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

God reveals what he can. If it were impossible to understand--he wouldn't bother.

We understand the Trinity to the degree God wanted us to.

I personally have no problem with it. It makes sense to me. With God-- all things are possible--including a virgin birth. Especially a virgin birth!

These examples are not the same as trying to define a man-made doctrine--and then when even biblically, you cannot--you declare it a mystery. Poppy-cock!!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

Are you saying that God may have given us doctrine or that man has given us doctrine?

So, God would only reveal some things, but not others? So, the Scriptures do not reveal all or do they reveal some or does man only understand some through revelation?

What are you really saying?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

What you are saying then is that you believe in things that you understand and then have faith in those things that you cannot understand but you don't call them mysteries eventhough you cannot provide answers to those questions like How does God exist without a beginning or an end

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

What I am saying is that I believe God and what He has revealed in the Scriptures--and I don't believe anything that He hasn't revealed.., such as many Catholic doctrines--that cannot be confirmed in the Scriptures..

You believe that Mary os the Mother of God.

I clarify that Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

The Scriptures simply do not reveal that Mary is God's Mother--she is Mother of our Lord Jesus here on earth.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

If you are afraid to answer, ok, I understand.

Listening to you, I would gather that you don't believe Jesus is God. Your math probably looks like "2+2=3"; it doesn't addup.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

"...and I don't believe anything that He hasn't revealed.., "- Faith.

That sounds atheistic, Faith. That's how some atheist concluded that God had died. They couldn't find answers, so they figured there must not be a god afterall.

It seems like there should be a better response than the one you've given.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

rod--

Just a quick reread will show you that you ask non-sensical questions. I answered them as best as possible. If you don't understand my points--that is fine. But don't accuse me of being afraid to answer. Lol!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

I understand, but you don't convince.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

Knowing you rod--

You probably didn't bother to look up all the Scripture verses I dug up to show you how I explain the Trinity. And you accuse me of not giving good answers?

Here it is again because I know you must have missed it to accuse me of not giving good answers:

I think the Scriptures do a wonderful job rod. I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are so clearly and consistently linked in Scripture that to assume that God is not of three persons makes it impossible to understand some passages. For example.....

For this reason I kneel before the Father...I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Ephesians 3:14,16,17a).

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He annointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come ( Corinthians 1:21,22).

Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus . Do not put out the Spirit's fire (1 Thess. 5:18,19).

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:3-6).

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men (1 Cor. 12:4-6).

"But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the begining God chose you to be saved through the sactifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth" ( 2 Thess. 2:13,14).

**********************************************************************

Try answering the following questions without concluding that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity:

Who raised Jesus from the dead? The Father (Romans 6:4)? The Son (John 2:19-21; 10:17,18)? The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11)? Or God (Acts 3:26; 1 Thess. 1:1,5; 4:2,8; 2 Thess. 3:5; 1 John 3:23,24)?

Who does the Bible say is God? The Father (Ephesians 4:6)? The Son (Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28)? The Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3,4)? Or God (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 45:18)?

Who created the world? The Father (Ephesians 3:9-14; 4:6)? The Son (Colossians 1:16-17;John 1:1-3)? The Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30)? Or God (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3)?

Who saves and regenerates man? 1 Peter 1:3; John 5:21; 4:14; John 3:6; Titus 3:5; or 1 John 3:9.

Who justifies man? Jeremiah 23:6;2 Cor. 5:19; Romans 5:9; 10:4; 2 Cor 5:19,21; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 5:5; Roman's 4:6; 9:33.

Who sanctifies man? Jude 1; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Exodus 31:13.

The Trinity can be logically defined, but this is partly the problem because "the infinite truth of the Godhead lies far beyond the boundries of logic, which deals with only finite truths and categories."

An infinite being, can never be fully understood by any finite person. Consider that an ant can never fully comprehend all that a human being is, even if it tried. Yet if a human could become an ant, he might be able to explain enough about what a human is so that the ant could gain something of an understanding as to what a human is. *Beyond the grasp of Human reason: (Phil. 2:5-11)

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

Afterall, in this forum, it is about who has the power to convince the other. I've drawn a line on the ground. One side is Catholicism; the other is Protestantism. I'm walking a thin line here. I could just pack it all up and forget the whole idea. Ah! to be pure or unpure...

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

Instead--buy a Bible.., and if you already have one--dust it off.

Then come back after you've bothered to look up those verses and can dialogue. Otherwise--I gotta go anyway...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

Perhaps Elpidio is the one in the "right" after the smoke clears.

Paul M. sure does sound more correct; he doesn't preach his personal interpretations here.

Faith, I wouldn't ask these questions had I not read and studied.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

Ah! the tough questions are the most feared by those who know things that are false. Yes??????????????????????

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

Just to clarify, this whole line of dicsussion on faith and understanding started with the Incarnation.

As far as the "Mother of God" title goes, I refer back to my last reply to Faith:

1. There is one God.

2. There are three persons in one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. The Son, the Word made Flesh, humbled Himself to be born of the Virgin Mary.

4. The second person of the Trinity, the Son, is fully human and fully God.

These are the beliefs inherent for Catholics in the title "Mother of God." Nothing about Mary creating God the Father. I wasn't asking Faith to agree with the title "Mother of God." I was asking if she would agree with the list of 4 statements of belief I made above.

I think the reason a lot of Protestants have a problem with the title "Mother of God" is because they misunderstand what Catholics mean when we use it. Most Protestants would agree with the list of four beliefs I made above, I think.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 04, 2004.

If we follow Catholic Dogma, then Jesus is not fully human.

Human males have a Y- Chromosome. Since according to Catholics God entered Mary without Joseph's help, who had the y_Chromosome, then Jesus cannot be 100% human (male).

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

Andy--

The reason we have a problem with the title is because it isn't Scriptural.

It has led to undo worship of Mary.

I know the Catholic denies worshiping Mary--but it is in fact how it plays out in reality. All one has to do is walk into a Catholic church or a Marian shrine to see it.

A Mother gives birth...so if Mary were the mother of God--it would mean that she gave birth to God.

We know that she gave birth to the human Jesus. His divine nature already existed...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

Hi Andy, I can't be so nice about this issue.

"I think the reason a lot of Protestants have a problem with the title "Mother of God" is because they misunderstand what Catholics mean when we use it. Most Protestants would agree with the list of four beliefs I made above, I think. "--Andy.

I believe that some Protestants project a false belief into most Catholic doctrines. Some don't, of course.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 04, 2004.

rod,

You said, I believe that some Protestants project a false belief into most Catholic doctrines. Some don't, of course.

I'm beginning to see that now.

Faith,

I'm going to stop replying on this subject for now. We keep going around in circles. I'm not sure you'll see what I'm trying to say this time around. Take another look at the 4 point list I made above and see if you don't agree with the beliefs listed there. That is what is meant by "Mother of God". That human Mary gave birth to is more than just a man, He is our Savior and Lord, he is also God. I'll have to leave it at that for now.

Elpidio,

I'll have to think about your point a little more before replying. Perhaps a biologist could make a better reply. I'm just an engineer.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 04, 2004.

"A Mother gives birth...so if Mary were the mother of God--it would mean that she gave birth to God."

A: Is Jesus God or isn't He? That's the only question you need to answer.

"We know that she gave birth to the human Jesus. His divine nature already existed..."

A: Who is "the human Jesus"? Are there two? There is only one Jesus I know of, and He is indeed human, and He is indeed God. Since His divine nature "already existed" as you say, He was therefore God at the moment Mary gave birth to Him. I can't think of any logical way that a woman whose Son is God can be anything other than the mother of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2004.

Ridiculous--

Mary is the mother of Jesus only.

God is a triune God.

She is not mother of this Divinity---just the human aspect of Jesus.

Even Jesus puts her back in place when he responds to some one who was telling him that his mother and brothers were waiting outside for him. He used his real human family's presence to reveal a deeper spiritual truth about God's family. He said, "Who is my mother and my brother and my sister?" Then he pointed to everyone and said all of you who do the will of my Father in heaven are my mother, my brother and my sister.

Earthly family is important--but only while we are here on the earth. Mary was Jesus' flesh and blood mother on earth.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 04, 2004.

Elpidio,

You said, Human males have a Y- Chromosome. Since according to Catholics God entered Mary without Joseph's help, who had the y_Chromosome, then Jesus cannot be 100% human (male).

I guess I don't see this as an issue. God, the author of life, is all powerful and doesn't need anybody's help to do His work. Whatever was required for the Word to become flesh, whatever was required for Jesus to be 100% man and 100% God is what happened. I know that sounds like a cop-out reply, but if God is all powerful why would He need a y-chromosome? If He wanted to use a y-chromosome, why couldn't he just create one by His thought or word? I don't know all the mechanics of the process, but the Holy came upon Mary and the Word was made flesh.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 04, 2004.

"Mary was Jesus' flesh and blood mother on earth".

Yep. And Jesus is God; therefore Mary was God's flesh and blood mother on earth. I'm afraid there just isn't any way around it, unless you deny the divinity of Mary's Son.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2004.

No Paul--

I just deny the Divinity of Mary--that's all.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.

I made a comment earlier, Faith. Your comments are bordering on atheism. Oops! I didn't mean to waste your time, sorry.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

Hmmmm......The Holy Spirit must have both X and Y chromosomes to give away. Was it the Holy Spirit who was there hovering over creation?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

Faith, Catholics deny the Divinity of Mary also, so we all agree on that.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

"I just deny the Divinity of Mary--that's all. "

So do I. What does that have to do with anything?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 05, 2004.

For Elpidio..,

Please don't reduce God to mere human biology.

God is the creator of all and He didn't create by having sex!

The Holy Spirit did not engage in intercourse with Mary...Jesus' conception is Divine...and God could put whatever chromosomes He deems necessary into the making of jesus--in the same way He did for Adam...Adam didn't even have a Mother!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.

"Adam didn't even have a Mother! "

There are pagan beliefs that would say Adam did have a mother.

There are even Christian beliefs that would say the Genesis story is all figurative.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

Don't forget faith, Protestants and Catholics sound the same to me: Catholics pray to the saints and Mary as intercessors.

Protestants are a little bit better, they pray to Jesus as intercessor.

But the saints and Jesus are humans.

Among of God Yahweh's children he, Jesus, is number 1.

God Yahweh is not human like us. He is a life-force Spirit.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

I guess it would be safe to say that Adam and Eve both now have a mother.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

Let me ask you this Elpidio--

Are angels or other humans worthy of our worship?

Does God teach that we should worship anything other than Him??

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.

You worship Jesus, faith, who I consider God's son. Like Hebrews sys is up there with the angels.

So then, It can be assumed it is possible to have someone as an intercessor.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

You didn't answer my question Elpidio--

I asked you if God says it is okay to worship angels or humans?

What does God say about it? What does God reveal in the Scriptures about worshiping angels or humans or anything other than Himself?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 05, 2004.

If I follow Elpidio's reasoning, it is correct to worship Jesus. In his reasoning, it is irrelevant whether Jesus is God or not; God told us that Jesus is the path.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 06, 2004.

That's right, Rod.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 06, 2004.

faith, with regard to you question about praying to angels and Jesus.On July 23, 2000 right after I talked to God Yahweh, Jesus came into the picture.

Jesus concern was Catholics. They tend to ignore until they are in serious problems. If God Yahweh was against people asking Jesus for help, then he should have said so then. Instead Jesus was given great powers to help people.

I don't know about the saints.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 06, 2004.

You still haven't answered my question.

According to Scripture--Does God say it is okay to worship anyone other than Himself?

I am not talking about praying to an angel or asking Jesus for help. I am talking about worship.

Are we to worship anyone--be it human or angel or idol or any other gods? Are we to bow down before anything other than God? What has God revealed about this in the Scriptures?

I'll help you out:

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 06, 2004.

Oops..hit the submit button too soon.

But I'll wait to see what you come up with first...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 06, 2004.

Jesus is "up there" with the angels? Jesus is Lord of the Angels. All power and authority has been given to Christ, and by nature He is the Son of God, Light from Light. Angels are created. Jesus is Eternal Life.

Saints certainly have power. They don't become devoid of influence in the world as soon as they die. In fact, it could be argued that, since they are in the presence of Christ now and have perfect communion with Him, they are more powerful than ever. If the saints are the judges of angels and angels have great power, how much more power do the saints possess?

This does not mean we worship saints, but we must certainly honor them as God's servants and not despise them or consider them powerless.

They do, as you know, still possess the power of prayer. They are still alive.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.

Worship is for God alone.

The fact that God says we cannot worship anything but Him--yet declares we should worship Jesus--proves that Jesus is God.

He is above the angels.

The saints are in Christ for now....until He comes again and raises us into our spiritual bodies. Prayers to the dead--even the dead in Christ--is a Catholic thing--and not Scriptural.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 07, 2004.

Prayers to the dead would certainly be futile - however, Jesus Christ told us "everyone who lives and believes in Me will NEVER DIE. Do you believe this?" (John 11:26) Well Faith? Do you believe it? If you do then what's all this nonsense about prayers "to the dead"? Speaking to those who are alive in Christ and asking for their intercession has been an integral part of Christian spirituality for 2,000 years, and will be until the end of time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 07, 2004.

No Paul--

It hasn't and you would be hard pressed to find any examples of the apostles praying to dead people.

Those who died in Christ are not up in heaven listening to you. Only God can hear and answer all of us and our prayers--otherwise you would have to admit that not only God is Omnipresent--but all dead people are too. I don't think Scripture will back that idea up.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 08, 2004.

No, the living saints do not have to be omnipresent to hear our prayers. They simply have to exist outside of time and space, which they do. The early Church had no problem asking the saints for intercession because they believed the word of Christ, Who had told them they would never die. Therefore they knew, as Catholics still know today, that those who have "fallen asleep" in Christ are still very much alive. Therefore, when we have asked another person to pray for us during their years on earth, there is absolutely no reason to stop asking them for prayer simply because they have moved on to a better place. Rev 5:8 describes one of the roles of the saints in heaven - presenting our prayers to God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 08, 2004.

Also check Hebrews 12:1. And are you implying that God is incapable of delivering our requests to the Saints in heaven? Sometimes God impresses upon someone's heart here on Earth that someone needs prayer at a certain time. How much more then, would that occur in heaven when the people (the Saints) are in the very presence of God and can hear His leading much more clearly than they can on Earth. These people are not dead -- they are more alive than us!

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 08, 2004.

Show me one example of any apostle in the New Testament Scriptures prays to a person not living...rather than to God .

Even Jesus said that when we pray--we should pray like this:

Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com), October 08, 2004.

Yes ... which has nothing to do with the question of asking other Christians to likewise pray "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.....' on our behalf. The New Testament is full of instances of one Christian asking another for prayers of intercession, or the writer exhorting others to offer prayers of intercession for one another or for the writer. Naturally, that practice was applied equally to those still on earth and to those who had "fallen asleep", since the early Church took Christ's words seriously that His followers would never die, and therefore saw living in the kingdom as a continuum, extending from earth into heaven. Same people, same prayer, same intercession.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 08, 2004.

Show me one verse where anyone is appealling to someone who has passed away????

Show me one verse where an apostle teaches us to pray to those no longer among us.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.

It is nothing short of trying to contact the dead--something God has clearly condemned.

Isaiah 8:19

When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.

Well at least you were honest enough to quote the whole passage, so we can see what it is referring to - namely spiritists and mediums. Like everything the Catholic Church allowed into the Bible, this passage is in complete agreement with Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states ...

"All forms of divination are to be rejected ... conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretaion of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to MEDIUMS all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone." (CCC, section 2116)

"All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion ... SPIRITISM often often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it." (CCC, section 2117)

So there you have it - the reason why this verse is in Scripture - because it was taught by the Catholic Church before the Bible was compiled, and will be taught by the Catholic Church until the end of time.

Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the honorable Christian practice of asking other Christians, living on earth or living in heaven, to pray for us.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.

What a dodge, Paul!

The Scripture comes from the book of Isaiah--and the Catholic Church has nothing to do with why it is in the Scriptures. God has everything to do with it though....

You might not recognize that trying to contact the dead is nothing short of behaving as a medium or spiritist--but I see that it is no different. The Catholic Church also claims to have magic powers.

But these words speak to all people everywhere...

Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

You have still not provided any Scripture where we can see this practice of praying to the dead or asking the dead to pray for us. Show me a verse where Paul or Peter or James or any of the apostles or New Testament authors seek help from people who have passed on......

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.

"But these words speak to all people everywhere ... Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?"

A: Yes they do. And the preceding verse tells us exactly what they mean.

"The Catholic Church also claims to have magic powers".

A: No kidding?. That would explain why the Catechism of the Catholic Church says "ALL practices of magic ... are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.

I guess you have no verses to support your claim?

Show me where Paul appeals to the dearly departed to intervene on his behalf.

Do we find anyone praying to John the Baptist? Do we find anyone praying to Stephen What about Moses or Elijah even?

Is there any examples of the New Testament authors appealing to anyone who has passed in all of biblical history--to intervene for them?

And yes--the Catholic Church does claim to be able to make magic. Consider the doctrine of Transubstantiation...a priest supposedly calls Christ down onto the altar and recrucifies him in an unbloody manner because Christ is literally in the wafer.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.

Was it magic when Jesus did it at the Last Supper? Did He say "Abracadabra, This Is My Body"? A work of God is not magic, and it is sacrilegious to suggest that it is.

Do you believe in healing? Most Protestants have at least enough faith to accept that. When someone "calls God down" on a person and the person is healed, is that magic?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.

I believe what the Bible reveals.., but I do not believe what the Roman Catholic Church says-- when it isn't something we can confirm in the Scriptures.

What Jesus did at the Last Supper has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church does today at Communion. Jesus didn't turn into literal bread, nor did the bread turn into Jesus either. Not then-- and not today.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.

Since the thread is long, the discussion has now moved to its continuation here The Image of La Virgen de Guadalupe part 2

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 09, 2004.

Elpidio--the above link does not work.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.