Our New Pope Francis I!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My knowledge of Koine Grek is practically non existent compared to yours, but I do know what an aorist indicative is.
In short Mary’s continued virginity or not formed no part of Matthew’s conscious intent when he chose these words, but in the course of making his actual point, which was to preclude the possibility of Joseph being Jesus father, he also incidentally, but conclusively, ended her virginity with Jesus birth. IF we let the text speak for itself.
[/quote]
The scriptures never speak to her having sex of any kind with anyone.
[/quote]

As I noted in my longer post (I’m really trying to make these shorter) about the grammar of Matthew 1:25, it actually DOES imply that she had sex.

[quote] Pat wrote:
You don’t have any evidence against it. Keep in mind you are talking about Jesus’s mother. Tread carefully in what you say about her in that Jesus honored her. If Jesus himself honored her do not dishonor her. People don’t take kindly to people disrespecting their mothers. Make sure what you say about her is truth, especially if your goal is to take her down a notch. God saw her fit to bring Him into the world, think about that for a while. It’s no small thing.[/quote]

No one’s goal is to take her down a notch, and saying that she had sex in no way dishonors her. That’s nonsense. The question is not whether Protestants dishonor her, but rather whether Catholics nearly deify her. That’s the real issue, and it requires some serious thought. Scripture may not say, “Mary had sex,” but neither does it say ANYWHERE in Scripture that one should petition her for aid. Those kinds of arguments from silence cut both ways, Pat.

142

Yes, we protestants honor Mary as Jesus did, no problem, Jesus was just following one of the Ten
Commandments anyway we MUST honor all our parents…But if Mary explicitly says in Luke she has
a “Savior”, what is she is saved FROM if not from Sin?
She explicitly says “My Savior” in Luke 1:47…“King Kai” is there any MORE meaning to Luke 1:47,
or is that pretty cut and dried simple?

Also if Mary was purely sinless from birth, she must have ascended to Heaven and not
have tasted death, yes?..is there any evidence from Scripture she ascended straight to Heaven
and did not die?
And how can two people that were as sinful as any other humans, the parents of Mary, produce a 100% sinless offspring like Mary?

143

[quote]Karado wrote: “King Kai” is there any MORE meaning to Luke 1:47, or is that pretty cut and dried simple? [/quote]Ya just hadta go n do that didn’t ya? LOL! No it’s actually not quite that cut n dried (which is why I didn’t mention it) though the Catholic answer is very highly unlikely as well. Mary probably didn’t mean the exact same thing by “savior” as we mean now. God was viewed as savior from enemies, circumstances, weather and depression for instance as well as sin. She may have understood her personal need for salvation, but at that time salvation was seen largely as a function of the covenant with national Israel. (And KingKai just fell outta his chair hearing me say this). But as the eternal covenant concerning elect individuals as well as them as a covenant community was about to be realized in time, so was that about to change. Terrible oversimplification of a VERY Long story. (And KingKai is now back in his chair)

Her praising God her “Savior” is just about the same as praising God generally. The Catholic view that she actually did have her own personal legal standing before God in view and that her immaculate conception and sinless perpetual virginity were the result is something she would never have had in mind. Romans 3 is a much better evidence for her and everybody else’s need for a savior from personal sin. At least that’s where my studies lead.

[quote]Karado wrote:<<< Also if Mary was purely sinless from birth, she must have ascended to Heaven and not
have tasted death, yes?..is there any evidence from Scripture she ascended straight to Heaven
and did not die? >>>[/quote]The “assumption of Mary” was not declared dogma until Pius XII used the last occurrence of alleged papal infallibility in 1950. No, it is nowhere so much as vaguely hinted at in scripture.

144

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
So Pat lemme get this straight, Catholics believe Mary herself was completely 100% sinless all her life?
Where does that come from? There was only one completely sinless one, Yeshua.
[/quote]
I already explained where it came from on the previous pages. Go back a few and look at the discussion between dmaddox and I. I don’t feel like retyping it all.

Again, this is highly circular reasoning - you presuppose the sinlessness and spiritual authority of Mary and then read the text through that lens. Once again, SOMEONE had to be asked to bare Christ if he was truly to be a human being descended along the Messianic lines. And secondly, Jesus also dishonored (in the truest, i.e., most contextually sensitive, use of the word) his mother (as well as his brothers) with his claim that his real family consisted of those who obeyed the will of God (Mark 3:31-35). And in any case, she WAS his mother; why is it that surprising that he would occasionally do something she asked him to do? Once again, that is only fitting; it doesn’t imply anything special about their relationship or about Mary’s authority than the fact that she was Jesus’ mother.

None of this proves that Mary was inherently special; it only attests to her position as Jesus’ mother.[/quote]

Circular reasoning? You know that means that the conclusion is a factor of itself. So I don’t know where you are getting circular, much less ‘highly circular’.
Second, Jesus did not ‘dishonor his mother’ since that would have been a sin as that would have violated the 4th commandment. I hope you are not implying that Jesus not committing sin is simply a factor of the fact that he was God and could therefore do anything he wanted and it’s not a sin? If he dishonored his mother, then he committed the sin of not honoring his mother.
Why is it surprising that he would occasionally do something she asked Him to do? Are you being serious with this?

Somebody had to be His mother? Well somebody had to be the Christ too. Are we to then say Christ isn’t special because somebody had to do it?

I don’t know what your criteria of ‘special’ is, but if God himself choosing one to be his mother isn’t special then I don’t know what is. I guess nothing is really ‘special’ then.

I have no idea what the purpose of this post was. We all know you are very learned when it comes to the scriptures, but I do not agree with your conclusions at all and I don’t think that’s merely a factor of my own ignorance.

145

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My knowledge of Koine Grek is practically non existent compared to yours, but I do know what an aorist indicative is.
In short Mary’s continued virginity or not formed no part of Matthew’s conscious intent when he chose these words, but in the course of making his actual point, which was to preclude the possibility of Joseph being Jesus father, he also incidentally, but conclusively, ended her virginity with Jesus birth. IF we let the text speak for itself.
[/quote]
The scriptures never speak to her having sex of any kind with anyone.
[/quote]

As I noted in my longer post (I’m really trying to make these shorter) about the grammar of Matthew 1:25, it actually DOES imply that she had sex.

[quote] Pat wrote:
You don’t have any evidence against it. Keep in mind you are talking about Jesus’s mother. Tread carefully in what you say about her in that Jesus honored her. If Jesus himself honored her do not dishonor her. People don’t take kindly to people disrespecting their mothers. Make sure what you say about her is truth, especially if your goal is to take her down a notch. God saw her fit to bring Him into the world, think about that for a while. It’s no small thing.[/quote]

No one’s goal is to take her down a notch, and saying that she had sex in no way dishonors her. That’s nonsense. The question is not whether Protestants dishonor her, but rather whether Catholics nearly deify her. That’s the real issue, and it requires some serious thought. Scripture may not say, “Mary had sex,” but neither does it say ANYWHERE in Scripture that one should petition her for aid. Those kinds of arguments from silence cut both ways, Pat.[/quote]

It does say that all generations will call her blessed. That prophecy came true, read it however you wish, that fact cannot be changed.
Nobody knows her to have had sex, period.

Catholics nearly deify her? That’s an ignorant statement and it’s patently false.

146

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.[/quote]

No where in the scriptures does it say she was a sinner, nor does it make any mention of her ‘sins’. The scriptures do say ‘Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!’, and ‘…you have found favor with God.’ ← These aren’t the marks of a sinner.
For the Holy Spirit to come into her to deliver the Savior of man, she had to be pretty special in God’s eyes.[/quote]

There’s a problem with your point, though, Pat - the exact same construction (euriskw [“to find”] + xaris [“grace, favor”] + “with God”] is applied both in the OT and NT to figures besides Mary. Noah “found favor” with Yahweh God in Genesis 6:8; David “found favor” with God according to Acts 7:46. Moreover, this phrase implies nothing about the spiritual status of the person - euriskw + xaris occurs literally DOZENS of times in the Septuagint, with the object of the preposition sometimes being God and other times being humans. To say that I “find favor with X” is essentially to say, “X likes me.” That’s really all it means; God’s favor rests on all KINDS of sinful people, so obviously it isn’t dependent on one’s sinlessness.
[/quote]

There is a difference. None of them were told they were ‘Full of Grace’ by the angel Gabriel and none of them save for Mary was asked to carry the Christ.
The point was that to say Mary was sinful is pure speculation, the scriptures make no mention of it, but in contrary express her as having a closeness with God few can attain.
If God honors you, who can dishonor you?[/quote]

Once again, this is one of those areas where, if you lack facility with Greek, you can’t really see what’s going on. The word translated as “full of grace” simply means “to be favored,” which brings us once again back to the syntactical construction we discussed previously - others besides Mary are said to find favor with God. The text does NOT say that Mary has a closeness with God “few can attain;” that’s your Catholic bias talking, not the text.
[/quote]
I suppose then that to be favored by God and being asked to carry the Christ is just a mundane thing for any man?

And saying ‘if you lack facility with Greek’ isn’t rhetoric? If not damned arrogant. As if to say, 'Dumbass, you got to know greek to understand what the scriptures say? That’s merely a tactic and it is rhetoric.

If you read accurately what I said, I didn’t accuse anybody of dishonoring her, I said to be careful not to. Her role was not insignificant, except apparently to you who figures that anybody could carry the Christ in to the world, nothing significant or special about that, no sir. After all somebody had to do it, just like somebody had to be the Christ, but whose counting.

[quote]
Moreover, I’m not sure how David or Noah (i.e., MEN) could have been asked to carry the Christ, so that’s kind of a mute point…[/quote]
And where in the ruddy hell does the scriptures say that David or Noah were even considered as candidates for carrying the Christ child? And if all things are possible with God, then they certainly could. For crying out loud this was ridiculous to say.

147

[quote]Karado wrote:
Yes, we protestants honor Mary as Jesus did, no problem, Jesus was just following one of the Ten
Commandments anyway we MUST honor all our parents…But if Mary explicitly says in Luke she has
a “Savior”, what is she is saved FROM if not from Sin?
She explicitly says “My Savior” in Luke 1:47…“King Kai” is there any MORE meaning to Luke 1:47,
or is that pretty cut and dried simple?
[/quote]
To praise God as your Savior is not the same as saying “I am a sinner”

Didn’t know that not dying in the flesh was a criteria of sinlessness??

[quote]
And how can two people that were as sinful as any other humans, the parents of Mary, produce a 100% sinless offspring like Mary?[/quote]
Are not all things possible with God? Elizabeth was well beyond her child baring years and yet produced a son? How can it happen? God wills it to, that’s how all this stuff happened. God’s will.

148

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Catholics nearly deify her? That’s an ignorant statement and it’s patently false.[/quote]I take no pleasure here, but I MUST do this Pat. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori. (September 27, 1696 - August 1, 1787) Saint Alphonsus is no ordinary Catholic, having been not only Canonized a saint May 26, 1839, by Gregory XVI, but also promoted to DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH by Pius IX in 1871. There have been only 35 doctors of the church in all of history among whom are giants like Augustine of Hippo, Thoma Aquinas and Anselm. If this guy is not to be accepted then I don’t know who is. His book: The Glories of Mary is among the most revered and used books on devotion to Mary ever written. It stills sells well on Amazon. It can be read here: The glories of Mary : Liguori, Alfonso Maria de', Saint, 1696-1787 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Consider these quotes among pages and pages I promise you my friend can be also mined from that book. [quote] But those who hope in Mary, as Mother of God, who is able to obtain graces and eternal life for them, are truly blessed and acceptable to the heart of God, Who desires to see that greatest of His creatures honored; for she loved and honored Him in this world more than all men and angels put together. And therefore we justly and reasonably call the Blessed Virgin our hope, trusting, as Cardinal Bellarmine says, “that we shall obtain through her intercession that which we should not obtain by our own unaided prayers.” (p.77.)

“Hail, then, O hope of my soul!” exclaims St. Ephrem, addressing this divine Mother; “hail, O certain salvation of Christians; hail, O helper of sinners; hail, fortress of the faithful and salvation of the world!” (p.78.)

“O Mary, thou art all-powerful; for thy divine Son, to honor thee, complies instantly with all thy desires.”
St. Gemanus, recognizing in Mary the source of all our good, and that she delivers us from every evil, thus invokes her: “O my sovereign Lady, thou alone art the one whom God has appointed to be my solace here below; thou art the guide of my pilgrimage, the strength of my weakness, the riches of my poverty, the remedy for the healing of my wounds, the soother of my pains, the end of my captivity, the hope of my salvation! Hear my prayers, have pity on my tears, I conjure thee, O thou who art my queen, my refuge, my love, my help, my hope, and my strength.” (p.80.)[/quote]

149

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Kingkai wrote:

[quote]Pat wrote:
And of those you mentioned, who was asked to bare and raise Christ himself? Who of whom you mentioned did Christ honor and obey?
[/quote]

Again, this is highly circular reasoning - you presuppose the sinlessness and spiritual authority of Mary and then read the text through that lens. Once again, SOMEONE had to be asked to bare Christ if he was truly to be a human being descended along the Messianic lines. And secondly, Jesus also dishonored (in the truest, i.e., most contextually sensitive, use of the word) his mother (as well as his brothers) with his claim that his real family consisted of those who obeyed the will of God (Mark 3:31-35). And in any case, she WAS his mother; why is it that surprising that he would occasionally do something she asked him to do? Once again, that is only fitting; it doesn’t imply anything special about their relationship or about Mary’s authority than the fact that she was Jesus’ mother.

None of this proves that Mary was inherently special; it only attests to her position as Jesus’ mother.[/quote]

Circular reasoning? You know that means that the conclusion is a factor of itself. So I don’t know where you are getting circular, much less ‘highly circular’.[/quote]

I see it as circular because you are starting from the assumption that Mary had to be inherently special for God to choose her as Jesus’ mother, then reading that assumption back into the text, when the meaning of the text is precisely what’s at question. Perhaps that doesn’t seem circular to you? Or maybe you don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal of your claims, in which case it’s my mistake and I’m more than open to a rebuttal.

My point, in any case, is that the mere fact that God chose her to bear the Christ does not (in and of itself) determine her sinlessness. Claiming that someone other than Christ Jesus (who the text explicitly states was sinless) is a major claim, and without more biblical evidence than the supposition that God wouldn’t have chosen her otherwise, it’s not really going to fly here.

[quote] Pat wrote:
Second, Jesus did not ‘dishonor his mother’ since that would have been a sin as that would have violated the 4th commandment. I hope you are not implying that Jesus not committing sin is simply a factor of the fact that he was God and could therefore do anything he wanted and it’s not a sin? If he dishonored his mother, then he committed the sin of not honoring his mother.
[/quote]

I would never claim that “Jesus is God; thus whatever he does is by definition righteous.” That’s not what I’m saying at all. As I specifically said, I’m talking “contextually,” i.e., in terms of the 1st century context. My point was that that biblical evidence is not unequivocal - while we have one example from John where Jesus did obey his mother, we have other examples where Jesus denied the “specialness” of his mother’s position.

You and I are in agreement that Jesus honored his mother in the sense entailed by the commandment. Consequently, I don’t understand why Jesus obeying his MOTHER on occasion is surprising - she’s his MOTHER. It doesn’t imply anything more significant about her credentials than the fact that she is his mother, a position of authority in his life.

Pat, you missed the point entirely. Your argument so far has been (A) God chose Mary to bear Jesus; (B) God would only choose someone who was sinless; (C) therefore, Mary must have been sinless. My point is that premise B is precisely what’s under question; you cannot simply assume it. God did have to choose a woman to bear Jesus if he was to be a human being; that’s a logical AND Scriptural necessity. But any other criteria, unless stated in Scripture, are pure speculation, including premise B above.

I didn’t say that God’s decision to choose her was not “special;” I’m saying that God’s decision to choose Mary does not necessarily entail Mary’s sinlessness or even worthiness.

150

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Kingkai wrote:

[quote] Pat wrote:
You don’t have any evidence against it. Keep in mind you are talking about Jesus’s mother. Tread carefully in what you say about her in that Jesus honored her. If Jesus himself honored her do not dishonor her. People don’t take kindly to people disrespecting their mothers. Make sure what you say about her is truth, especially if your goal is to take her down a notch. God saw her fit to bring Him into the world, think about that for a while. It’s no small thing.[/quote]

No one’s goal is to take her down a notch, and saying that she had sex in no way dishonors her. That’s nonsense. The question is not whether Protestants dishonor her, but rather whether Catholics nearly deify her. That’s the real issue, and it requires some serious thought. Scripture may not say, “Mary had sex,” but neither does it say ANYWHERE in Scripture that one should petition her for aid. Those kinds of arguments from silence cut both ways, Pat.[/quote]

It does say that all generations will call her blessed. That prophecy came true, read it however you wish, that fact cannot be changed.
Nobody knows her to have had sex, period. [/quote]

I don’t understand what your point is here.

[quote] Pat wrote:
Catholics nearly deify her? That’s an ignorant statement and it’s patently false.
[/quote]

Pat, I don’t think you read what I wrote very carefully. I didn’t say that they nearly deify her; I said that was a QUESTION that is worth discussing. If you’re going to discuss religious faith with others not of your faith, you have to accept the possibility that they will question your most dearly held beliefs. I’m not trying to step on your toes; I know that, as a genuine, faithful Catholic, these are issues that are very important to you, so I’m sorry if it seems like I’m attacking you.

151

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.[/quote]

No where in the scriptures does it say she was a sinner, nor does it make any mention of her ‘sins’. The scriptures do say ‘Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!’, and ‘…you have found favor with God.’ ← These aren’t the marks of a sinner.
For the Holy Spirit to come into her to deliver the Savior of man, she had to be pretty special in God’s eyes.[/quote]

There’s a problem with your point, though, Pat - the exact same construction (euriskw [“to find”] + xaris [“grace, favor”] + “with God”] is applied both in the OT and NT to figures besides Mary. Noah “found favor” with Yahweh God in Genesis 6:8; David “found favor” with God according to Acts 7:46. Moreover, this phrase implies nothing about the spiritual status of the person - euriskw + xaris occurs literally DOZENS of times in the Septuagint, with the object of the preposition sometimes being God and other times being humans. To say that I “find favor with X” is essentially to say, “X likes me.” That’s really all it means; God’s favor rests on all KINDS of sinful people, so obviously it isn’t dependent on one’s sinlessness.
[/quote]

There is a difference. None of them were told they were ‘Full of Grace’ by the angel Gabriel and none of them save for Mary was asked to carry the Christ.
The point was that to say Mary was sinful is pure speculation, the scriptures make no mention of it, but in contrary express her as having a closeness with God few can attain.
If God honors you, who can dishonor you?[/quote]

Once again, this is one of those areas where, if you lack facility with Greek, you can’t really see what’s going on. The word translated as “full of grace” simply means “to be favored,” which brings us once again back to the syntactical construction we discussed previously - others besides Mary are said to find favor with God. The text does NOT say that Mary has a closeness with God “few can attain;” that’s your Catholic bias talking, not the text.
[/quote]
I suppose then that to be favored by God and being asked to carry the Christ is just a mundane thing for any man?
[/quote]

This is a mute point. It’s stock language; it’s not uniquely applied to Mary. It doesn’t indicate anything about her sinlessness/ freedom from original sin. It’s not a mundane thing, but the language is sufficiently common that it cannot function as evidence of her sinlessness.

[quote]Pat wrote:

[quote]Kingkai wrote:
And here, once again, we have more rhetoric - no one is dishonoring Mary by saying that she had sex with a man. That’s absolutely ridiculous, a product of post-apostolic theological attitudes among the church fathers that denigrated sexuality. To say that Mary engaged in sexual activity in NO way diminishes the fact that God used her.
[/quote]
And saying ‘if you lack facility with Greek’ isn’t rhetoric? If not damned arrogant. As if to say, 'Dumbass, you got to know greek to understand what the scriptures say? That’s merely a tactic and it is rhetoric.
[/quote]

Just because you don’t like the implication doesn’t mean it’s a “tactic.” The last thing I’m interested in is shutting you up, Pat, which is why someone would use such a tactic. My statement about the necessity of Greek here was simply an honest assessment of the situation - if you knew Greek and could see the other relevant examples, you would recognize that this is common language.

[quote]Pat wrote:
If you read accurately what I said, I didn’t accuse anybody of dishonoring her, I said to be careful not to. Her role was not insignificant, except apparently to you who figures that anybody could carry the Christ in to the world, nothing significant or special about that, no sir. After all somebody had to do it, just like somebody had to be the Christ, but whose counting.
[/quote]

Pat, I didn’t say that you did accuse us of dishonoring her; I simply asserted that my statements do not count as dishonor. And I did not say that her role was insignificant; you’re not listening. Once again, the MERE FACT that God chooses someone to perform a task in no way indicates that the person chosen was sinless, worthy, etc. In fact, it is likely that the reason why God chose her was because she was betrothed to Joseph, who was himself a descendant of David. In that case, it would not be because Mary was particularly unique in herself, but because of her relationship with someone that would tie Jesus to David, that Mary was chosen.

[quote]Pat wrote:

[quote]Kingkai wrote:
Moreover, I’m not sure how David or Noah (i.e., MEN) could have been asked to carry the Christ, so that’s kind of a mute point…[/quote]
And where in the ruddy hell does the scriptures say that David or Noah were even considered as candidates for carrying the Christ child? And if all things are possible with God, then they certainly could. For crying out loud this was ridiculous to say. [/quote]

Pat, you really need to chill out. You said the following…

[quote] Pat wrote:
There is a difference. None of them were told they were ‘Full of Grace’ by the angel Gabriel and none of them save for Mary was asked to carry the Christ.
[/quote]

You can find this quote at the top, and you made this statement in response to my point that Noah and David alike are said to have “found favor with God.” You said that "none of them," which in context refers to others who are said to have found favor with God (which in context includes Noah and David), were asked to carry the Christ. THAT’S why I made the comment about David and Noah - YOU SET IT UP. And given God’s clear and consistent affirmation of gender distinctions and certain roles, as well as the prophecy that a young virginal WOMAN would bear the Messiah, I can say that (since God keeps his word and never acts contrary to his character and revealed will) God could not have asked David or Noah to bear the Christ.

152

For the record I also have a very high view of the apostle Peter that does not require his being the first pope. It’s fair to throw in here that others are described by God in terms at least as glowing. Abraham is called the friend of God, Moses spoke to God face to face (as it were) as man speaks to his friend and David, an adulterous murderer, is called a man after God’s own heart. Enoch and Elijah WERE indisputably assumed directly into heaven because of favor with God. Elijah went overnight from calling fire down on the altar and slaying the prophets of Baal to running and and hiding in a cave crying like a child when Jezebel came after him for doing it. I really do believe that the assumption doctrine was contrived in direct competition to Enoch and Elijah. It wasn’t even dogmatized until the 20th century. Paul and John were given exceedingly great revelations of the Lord. Mary was favored for the same reason any of us are and that is the electing grace of the sovereign God. I do recognize a singular honor and blessing being bestowed upon her for that reason. Solo Deo Gloria. To God alone be the glory.

153

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Why do you feel closer to Christians than other folks? Have you interacted or spent much time with a Muslim, Jewish, Hindi family? I really experience no difference in character of the people, if anything Jewish folk and Muslims seem to actually live by the rules of their religion, not so sure about Christians, though I do get the typical Muslim kid having his first go at alcohol here at my place of work. At least I see them coming in buzzed, drunk every now and then. Usually kids from Kuwait or Saudi, lots of the time they come out here to scout schools, and it’s ALWAYS Muslim young men, never women. [/quote]

As for me, I have spent time with all three of the above. Had a great talk with a Hindu guy who was a ‘work buddy’. He was very open with me about talking about his faith. And he did not mind me asking questions about it and setting me strait on the misconceptions. Like ‘What’s with all those gods’, which he explained they aren’t 'god’s per se, but manifestations of God. He blames translation on the misconceptions people have, he explained that the Hindu faith does not translate well because the words may say “gods” but they don’t mean God, but an expression. He also explained the great admiration for Jesus that Hindu’s have. That’s not to say they are Christ centered, they are not. But they are aware and consider him a great ‘profit’, which actually isn’t the right term in how they view Him, but it’s the closest I could come up with. He did say something interesting. They believe that his 40 days spent in the desert in prayer and meditation is how He was able to manifest his power in the flesh.
I think most people that he just was God in the flesh and could just ‘whammy’ miracles out whenever he wanted. But they (the Hindus, as he explained it) believe he had to ‘work’ for it. It wasn’t just given. A view actually supported by Isaiah.
He was a great guy to talk to. He was very into his faith, and you can’t really get a ‘feel’ for something like that unless you talk to a guy who has a passion for it.

And yes, I did at a different time, have another ‘work buddy’ who was Muslim. We would talk about faith and he was pretty open about it. He was obviously or the more liberal interpretations, but he was pretty normal. What I mean is he didn’t do kooky stuff and carry around prayer rugs, but I can say while I considered him a ‘good guy’, he was a little more disappointing to talk to than the Hindu. He did manage to not hate Jews and hate the shit out of Jews both at the same time. He clearly did not support violence and stuff, but there was ‘less joy’ in his faith. It’s tough to describe what it was, but it was like a more calloused faith expression. He invited me to his mosque for Friday prayer once, shortly after 9/11. I went and did all the washing and stuff. While they did their Arabic stuff I just quietly prayed my little Catholic prayers. I listened to the sermon, which wasn’t a freak show or anything, it was actually quite normal. He was talking how the hijackers hijacked Islam for their own selfish purposes and stuff like that. But I can say I went. I went for my friend, I wanted to show him that I didn’t hate him or was mad at him or his faith. I later got angry at the faith because, like it or not, there is a great deal of Muslim practitioners who do preach violence, intolerance, murder and hate. A disproportionate amount, to many to disregard as a lunatic fringe. They may be lunatics, but there are to many to be a ‘fringe’. I can tall you this, they better reel that shit in one day, because the truth is a lot of those folks just want to be left alone to lead their lives. They don’t want to fight and die, so there is great conflict and turmoil with in Islam. I have since calmed down and let God do the judging. I can see the ‘fruits’ of people’s behavior and I know when I see right and wrong, but it’s not my place to judge them as God judges.
This is my experience talking with the people that I knew.
[/quote]

There are going to be fringe folks everywhere. The thing that gets me about Islam is how so many people talk about being Godly, I think it’s inspiring and in a sense a display of how they intend to be. Not innocent children of God, but as disciplined and educated people with a lifelong endeavor.

This is what I’ve seen, it’s like a practice for mastery which I just don’t see in other religions.

In Judaisim I see a lot more emphasis on education, not just education but real understanding rather than the sort of regurgitation I see a lot in Catholicism, like memorizing certain prayers in the same way we might memorize a nice tune without every understanding the meaning, or spending time and trying to understand the meaning for ones self but rather letting some priest tell you what it means. Interpretations of the Torah are very much up for debate as I have learned people are encouraged to debate this stuff out, regardless of education.

With Catholicism, it’s like we can find a point and all that happens is some Pope conveniently changes up the interpretation to make things right, sometimes after hundreds of years of doing things wrong. Maybe this is my perception, being raised Catholic and studying the Political History of the Americas makes it more obvious with Christianity.

As far as I can see, there are extremists in all religions. Just seems Islam’s literalists are more dedicated than the Christian ones.

154

To be clear, in Catholicism, once a point is set as dogma not even a future pope can change it. This sets the stage for some rather creative interpretations of both history and dogma itself as many centuries of what I firmly believe is human invention, is bent and contorted in a never ending and futile quest for an unachievable harmony. THIS is the inevitable disaster of attempting a single monolithic earthly organizational ekklesia. Despite my VERY sincere personal wishes that it could be so, such a thing (among many others) was unhitched and left behind when the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom. (Matthew 27)

Modern Catholicism (last 200 years) has recognized this escalating problem of increasing difficulty with harmonization and is hence hesitant to tighten things up any more than they already have. In fact, no matter what my Catholic friends tell me, I am compelled to believe that Vatican II was an (unsuccessful) attempt to loosen that noose and push the wiggle walls out a bit. That’s why if one goes here: forums.catholic.com/ they will discover the truth about so called Roman Catholic “unity”.

Nowhere on the web will one find more confused controversy and diversity of theological opinion. There are just as many substantive incompatible camps inside Rome as there are protestant denominations. The difference is, we don’t attempt to impose an artificial unity upon the “visible” church and we recognize our differences while clinging to Christ Himself and His perfect knowledge as the unity in the true body of Christ consisting of all those authentic converts who are actually regenerate in Him.

That’s all we mean by the “visible” and “invisible” church. The visible church is everybody who claims to be a Christian. The invisible church is everybody who actually is. The invisible church is visible too, except only God knows infallibly who her members are.

155

[quote]Karado wrote:
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.[/quote]

She was born without the stain of sin and she never sinned in her lifetime. She still had the guilt of original sin. Which we all do (except Jesus) and yes, she needed a savior. However, she was not affected by the stain original sin and therefore was immaculately conceived. Anything else is blaspheme against the Lord (that he would create his own mother and go against scripture/promise of the father).

The Church has always claimed that Mary needed a savior. However, this does not mean that it follows that she sinned or was victim to concupiscence.

156

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I would say this even if it were a protestant, but I’d be a bit more impressed if it weren’t on TV. [quote]5-"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. [/quote] Jesus speaking in Matthew 6:5 The most God honoring acts of righteousness are ones few know about until the judgement. [/quote]He doesn’t really have control over that being as he is the Bishop of Rome.[/quote] Not buyin it Chris. I’m not saying he’s going out of his way to get attention, but I KNOW he could avoid it if he wanted to. And if he really can’t then that’s just another evidence against anything like a papacy being ordained of God.
[/quote]

Non-sequitor Tirib. Now you’re starting to troll. Since when do video cameras have to do with faith and morals? They don’t.

157

[quote]Karado wrote:
So Pat lemme get this straight, Catholics believe Mary herself was completely 100% sinless all her life?
Where does that come from? There was only one completely sinless one, Yeshua.

You are correct, No Bible verse explicitly declares that Mary committed any sin, however there are no Bible verses which declare that Seth, Enoch, Stephen, Philemon, committed any sin either, does that mean they were all sinless as well? many Bible verses explicitly state that everyone sins. Therefore, Mary sinned. We should not belittle the impressive biblical record of Mary. But she, like any other human being, needed a Savior to take away her sins…she said so herself in Luke.

And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior (Luke 1:47)[/quote]

It came from Jesus and his Apostles.

158

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is my opinion but I would think Mary would dislike all the attention she gets from the RCC. She would say, “Why are you asking me to talk to my son. You don’t need me. You can do it yourself. He is right over there. Go talk to him.”[/quote]

Your opinion is wrong (not a big surprise, most of my opinions I have found to be wrong), because plainly from the example of the Wedding of Cana, this is not how she operates. She instigated his first public miracle. She’s also the source of the tradition of the Wedding of Cana. [/quote]

So, lets ask Mary because she can co-orse Jesus into giving us what we want? That is your argument?[/quote]

No. That is not my argument. Never heard of that one.

159

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

LOL!!! Capable, but chose not to, even though the Holy Scripture said that she did.[/quote]

Where does it say this???[/quote]

Are you blind, I already posted it, but I will repost so you can look it up yourself. Mathew 1:24-25 read it.

You are now just playing the fool.

Pat is at least willing to discuss. You on the other hand just put your hands in your ears and blah, blah, blah and then stick your head in the sand.

[/quote]

Yes, say that I’m not willing to discuss after you making statements without arguments. No where in Matthew 1:24-25 does it say that they consummated their marriage.

160

I understand Yeshua is the ONLY one that never sinned, but what I don’t understand is that both of Mary’s
Parents were sinners like anyone else, yes? So how can a completely sinless Woman be born from two sinners?

How can that happen? I hope you don’t say that both of Mary’s parents were not sinners
because then things would get really complicated.

I’m open believe it or not…What does the Bible say if anything about how she was spared from
Sin completely if she was the direct offspring of parents who were sinners like everyone else?