Christianity & Catholicism

[falklands]

heartofgold said:

But I don't think alcohol is a totally evil thing. That's like saying cars are evil because some people crash them, or speed race and such. Alcohol in small quantities has health benefits, large benefits and you get drunk and you sinned. But like I said, there's a big difference between drinking alcohol and getting drunk on it. I think Jesus would have had every right as a holy person to drink a little wine, just so long as he doesn't get drunk on it (which he didn't).

Alcohol is not a totally evil thing. A Christian can generally drink it in good conscience (so long as it does not become a stumbling block to his brother). Note that the Nazirites completely abstained from all wine as holy people. Seeing as this is not a fundamental aspect of Christian faith, I'd be more willing to concede in this subject, however.

Well that's true, but wine means wine. Wine doesn't, and never has, meant grape juice. The Greek says "wine." A fermented drink with alcohol. If a holy person came up and said, "want some wine?" I'd think he meant wine, since it doesn't have another meaning.

Refer to the list up the page.

Well great, but once again this proves what I'm saying. The bible says "don't get drunk." It doesn't say, "don't drink at all."

Well like I said, this is great. Don't get drunk. But you can still drink a little wine.

But don't you think Jesus might have presented a stumbling block to some by drinking wine? The Pharisees tried to depict him as such, but because he didn't actually drink wine, he wasn't a stumbling block.

Well, Mr. Context ;) here's the verse in context.

"You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses."

It says don't drink wine in the Tent of Meeting. There's a difference.

I concede that point. But obviously there is something a little unclean about alcohol.

Ah, but it says don't crave strong drink. That means you're gonna get drunk on it. That's a sin. But there's a difference between being told not to crave it, and not to drink it.

I concede. Let Teckor take it up if he can.

Once again, led astray by wine. There's a big difference between being led astray by wine, and drinking wine. A little wine at dinner isn't going to turn you into a disheveled drunk.

But once again, alcohol is considered a little unclean. Solomon didn't say "Wine is a mocker when used in excess".

Well, wine is only a stumbling block if you take it in excess. Just like cars. But wine in small quantities is not a stumbling block, in fact Christ recommends you take some for your stomach.

But for some people, they cannot handle any amount of alcohol. They might have got drunk on even a little. If Jesus passed around alcohol, he could have inadverdently cast a stumbling block before someone. But of course he did not come to be a stumbling block before anyone.

Well first off, you're way overestimating the power of alcohol. Its not like drugs, one sniff and you're addicted. A sip of wine at communion is not going to make anyone an alcoholic (actually I don't like the stuff).
And no Catholic church ever ran a home like that. They kick you out of the priesthood if you're alcoholic.

There is still a fuzzy line between sobriety and drunkenness. Yeah, you can drink wine if you really want to, but Jesus as the holiest of people did not, I think.

Except that wine is wine. The Greek word for wine is used both places. Here, and when its reccomed for stomach pains. No grape juice ever helped your stomach.

*Up steps Teckor*

[qutoe]Well, as you can tell by what he said to Mary, I don't think he did take glory in it. But did it to show some of the power he had. That's just a theory though. You can ask him why later.[/quote]

He "manifested forth his glory" in that incident. Do you honestly think he would have gotten any glory from making drunk people drunker, whatever the means? Making them drunker would have done just the opposite.

Well, I'd be impressed.

???

[heartofgold]

Alcohol is not a totally evil thing. A Christian can generally drink it in good conscience (so long as it does not become a stumbling block to his brother). Note that the Nazirites completely abstained from all wine as holy people. Seeing as this is not a fundamental aspect of Christian faith, I'd be more willing to concede in this subject, however.

Oh, well good. Then I think we both agree that Jesus, being a holy person, had every right to drink wine.
One of the things you do have to realize here is there wasn't much else to drink. Basically, they had wine and water. Now, most of the time the wine was better for you than the water. Everyone drank wine. Jesus didn't have a whole lot of choices as to what to drink.

Refer to the list up the page.

Alright, I concede. Actually this is all new to me. I didn't know any of this existed. But I have to ask, how do you make non-alcoholic wine? You stamp on grapes, put alcohol in it, now you've got wine, how do you make it non-alcoholic? If in the first place you're making it by stamping on grapes, then you're probably not refined enough to go invent a machine running on electricity to take the alcohol out of your wine. How did these people make something that's not grape juice, and not wine?

But don't you think Jesus might have presented a stumbling block to some by drinking wine? The Pharisees tried to depict him as such, but because he didn't actually drink wine, he wasn't a stumbling block.

Well first off, you've brought up the point that the Pharisees tried to depict him as such. How do you do that when he's not drinking wine?
Second, this is still like saying authority figures at your house (meaning people who can drive obviously), are presenting a stumbling block to speed racers. Obviously Jesus never got drunk (or speed raced for that matter), meaning for me, that would have been no stumbling block at all.

I concede that point. But obviously there is something a little unclean about alcohol.

Well, there's something unclean about anything in excess. Nothing is to be taken in excess.

But once again, alcohol is considered a little unclean. Solomon didn't say "Wine is a mocker when used in excess".

But in other passages in the bible its good for your stomach. When people warn against drinking wine, its like all the commercials telling you to drive safe. They don't say don't drive, they say drive safe. Wine is good in small quantities.

But for some people, they cannot handle any amount of alcohol. They might have got drunk on even a little. If Jesus passed around alcohol, he could have inadverdently cast a stumbling block before someone. But of course he did not come to be a stumbling block before anyone.

Well first off, like I said, they drank wine instead of water back then. These people were on a level with the English here (brandy with breakfast ). This little amount getting them drunk would be like a drop of Ice Cream giving you a stomach ache.
Second, alcohol isn't that powerful. Nobody's going to get drunk at communion. Its more or less physically impossible.

There is still a fuzzy line between sobriety and drunkenness. Yeah, you can drink wine if you really want to, but Jesus as the holiest of people did not, I think.

Well, its like there's a fuzzy line between driving, and speed racing. One of OK, the other not. Drinking is fine. Getting drunk is not. Either you're drunk or you're not.
Also, this is kinda a contradiction. We're trying to be like Christ. If Christ didn't think wine was OK, I don't want to drink it. Either he thought it was OK, in which case its fine for a Christian to drink it, or he didn't think it was OK, in which case I definitely don't want any. But it's one or the other.

He "manifested forth his glory" in that incident. Do you honestly think he would have gotten any glory from making drunk people drunker, whatever the means? Making them drunker would have done just the opposite.

You missed one of my posts so I'm going to sum it up.

Its not eleven at night any more, and a couple of things have just occurred to me. First off, it doesn't say they were drunk. So he wasn't necessarily making drunk people drunker. Second, these wedding feasts went on for days. Running out of wine meant you had to drink the water . Running out of wine was a very bad thing at these deals. So this doesn't necessarily mean that they had fallen on the wine pots and were drunk as anything, then Jesus gave them more.

But another point I have to bring up. The Eucharist has been celebrated since, well, Ignatius from the last page at least. They've been drinking wine this whole time. So I have to ask. Did the disciples not know it was non-alcoholic? Did they think, "when we celebrate this, we're going to use wine because that's what he used," not knowing it was actually something he didn't approve of? Why did all these early Christian's use wine when they weren't supposed too?

[falklands]

heartofgold said:

Oh, well good. Then I think we both agree that Jesus, being a holy person, had every right to drink wine.
One of the things you do have to realize here is there wasn't much else to drink. Basically, they had wine and water. Now, most of the time the wine was better for you than the water. Everyone drank wine. Jesus didn't have a whole lot of choices as to what to drink.

As I showed you before, Wine is not necessarily alcoholic.

Alright, I concede. Actually this is all new to me. I didn't know any of this existed. But I have to ask, how do you make non-alcoholic wine? You stamp on grapes, put alcohol in it, now you've got wine, how do you make it non-alcoholic? If in the first place you're making it by stamping on grapes, then you're probably not refined enough to go invent a machine running on electricity to take the alcohol out of your wine. How did these people make something that's not grape juice, and not wine?

I don't know. But the fact remains that Wine need not be alcoholic.

Well first off, you've brought up the point that the Pharisees tried to depict him as such. How do you do that when he's not drinking wine?

First off, in the case of the Pharisees, they were simply lying when calling him a drunkard. People who had been around him already knew the truth, but those who had not simply knew what the Pharisees told them: that Jesus was a drunkard. He might have been drinking wine, but that wine was not alcoholic. Nevertheless, the Pharisees used his consumption of beverages to falsely accuse him. If they could stoop to calling him a drunkard, they could stoop to calling him a drinker of alcohol.

Second, this is still like saying authority figures at your house (meaning people who can drive obviously), are presenting a stumbling block to speed racers. Obviously Jesus never got drunk (or speed raced for that matter), meaning for me, that would have been no stumbling block at all.

Well, there's something unclean about anything in excess. Nothing is to be taken in excess.

But then why did God forbid the Priests to go into the holy place after drinking any amount of wine? Surely he would have said, "Just don't get drunk on wine before you go in there." Even though the reason is that they might differ between holy and unholy, the commandment still remains: no wine at all when you go into the Tent of Meeting.

But in other passages in the bible its good for your stomach. When people warn against drinking wine, its like all the commercials telling you to drive safe. They don't say don't drive, they say drive safe. Wine is good in small quantities.

Well first off, like I said, they drank wine instead of water back then. These people were on a level with the English here (brandy with breakfast ). This little amount getting them drunk would be like a drop of Ice Cream giving you a stomach ache.
Second, alcohol isn't that powerful. Nobody's going to get drunk at communion. Its more or less physically impossible.

I still tend to think that wine is a little unclean (in any quantity. Remember the Nazirites?

Well, its like there's a fuzzy line between driving, and speed racing. One of OK, the other not. Drinking is fine. Getting drunk is not. Either you're drunk or you're not.
Also, this is kinda a contradiction. We're trying to be like Christ. If Christ didn't think wine was OK, I don't want to drink it. Either he thought it was OK, in which case its fine for a Christian to drink it, or he didn't think it was OK, in which case I definitely don't want any. But it's one or the other.

Just as a note, I have never drunk any form of alcohol in my life and never intend to.

You missed one of my posts so I'm going to sum it up.

Its not eleven at night any more, and a couple of things have just occurred to me. First off, it doesn't say they were drunk. So he wasn't necessarily making drunk people drunker. Second, these wedding feasts went on for days. Running out of wine meant you had to drink the water . Running out of wine was a very bad thing at these deals. So this doesn't necessarily mean that they had fallen on the wine pots and were drunk as anything, then Jesus gave them more.

Ok, I will set forth the first argument:

THE EIGHTH REASON: JOHN 2, THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE ALCOHOLIC. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men's tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.

REASON NINE IS FOUND IN THE SAME PASSAGE: THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus "manifested forth his glory." Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!

This chapter also gives us the tenth reason: making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, "his disciples believed on him." Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.

But another point I have to bring up. The Eucharist has been celebrated since, well, Ignatius from the last page at least. They've been drinking wine this whole time. So I have to ask. Did the disciples not know it was non-alcoholic? Did they think, "when we celebrate this, we're going to use wine because that's what he used," not knowing it was actually something he didn't approve of? Why did all these early Christian's use wine when they weren't supposed too?

Well, the Eucharist is something I might debate even now...you never answered my argument that Jesus' wine and bread (whether alcoholic or non-alcoholic) had to have turned into his body and blood BEFORE he made the sacrifice of his body "once and for all". As for Ignatius, I have no reason to accept his word as gospel, seeing as his words are never included in the Bible. As for the Early Christians, I can't answer that so well, yet. Gotta go!

[heartofgold]

As I showed you before, Wine is not necessarily alcoholic.

I don't know. But the fact remains that Wine need not be alcoholic.

But there wasn't any other kind of wine back then. How do they make this non-alcoholic wine? You can't now without all sorts of machines and such. How did they make it then?

First off, in the case of the Pharisees, they were simply lying when calling him a drunkard. People who had been around him already knew the truth, but those who had not simply knew what the Pharisees told them: that Jesus was a drunkard. He might have been drinking wine, but that wine was not alcoholic. Nevertheless, the Pharisees used his consumption of beverages to falsely accuse him. If they could stoop to calling him a drunkard, they could stoop to calling him a drinker of alcohol.

First off, in the case of the Pharisees, they were simply lying when calling him a drunkard. People who had been around him already knew the truth, but those who had not simply knew what the Pharisees told them: that Jesus was a drunkard. He might have been drinking wine, but that wine was not alcoholic. Nevertheless, the Pharisees used his consumption of beverages to falsely accuse him. If they could stoop to calling him a drunkard, they could stoop to calling him a drinker of alcohol.

Well, this is the same thing I have going on with Teckor (wherever he went ). Its possible, but I think they were smarter than that. These people did manage (with Jesus' consent) to make most Jews hate him in the end, they were fairly intelligent. If I'm you're prototypical Jew living back then, you can tell me all sorts of things about him, and I might believe you since I don't know anything about him. But if you come to me and tell me "he's getting drunk off of Grape Juice!" Then I'm not going to listen to you anymore. I think these people were smarter than that.
But its possible.

But then why did God forbid the Priests to go into the holy place after drinking any amount of wine? Surely he would have said, "Just don't get drunk on wine before you go in there." Even though the reason is that they might differ between holy and unholy, the commandment still remains: no wine at all when you go into the Tent of Meeting.

Well first off, he did want them sane in the Tent of Meeting. Might as well not risk it. The interesting thing about this verse though is it assumes they were allowed to drink it the rest of time. He wouldn't go through the trouble to tell them they couldn't drink in there if they couldn't drink period. So he obviously thinks its OK in certain places and in small quantities.

I still tend to think that wine is a little unclean (in any quantity. Remember the Nazirites?

Well, in excess it is unclean. Alcohol is dangerous stuff when not used properly, like everything else in life.

Just as a note, I have never drunk any form of alcohol in my life and never intend to.

My point was its one or the other. "Christ didn't think you should drink but you still can as a good Christian" isn't really a position you can take.

THE EIGHTH REASON: JOHN 2, THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE ALCOHOLIC. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men's tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.

Well that's true. But then we have to rely on the assumption that Christ was making some special wine which at that time was totally unknown. If that's the case even the people writing the bible didn't know that, it was written in Greek when they didn't know how to make non-alcoholic wine. This is totally possible, but it just seems unlikely.

REASON NINE IS FOUND IN THE SAME PASSAGE: THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus "manifested forth his glory." Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!

This chapter also gives us the tenth reason: making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, "his disciples believed on him." Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.

Well once again, he wasn't necessarily making drunk people drunker, as the bible doesn't say they were necessarily drunk.

Well, the Eucharist is something I might debate even now...you never answered my argument that Jesus' wine and bread (whether alcoholic or non-alcoholic) had to have turned into his body and blood BEFORE he made the sacrifice of his body "once and for all".

Well, this is a little fuzzy. What I'm more interested in the belief that the Eucharist is Christ now. To tell you the honest truth, I'm not entirely sure what Catholics think the bread and wine were before Jesus' death (I could find out if you're madly curious).

As for Ignatius, I have no reason to accept his word as gospel, seeing as his words are never included in the Bible.

But he was a disciple of John! How did he get it wrong? He's sitting there soaking in every word John says, and then some how manages to twist it into something totally different?

By the way, this for Teckor mostly if he reads this. This sorda blasts the notion that the Early Church were the true Christians and then the Catholic Church came along in 400. The Early Christian's had it wrong too (and actually the earliest document we have calling the church Catholics is from Ignatius).

[awaz]

True Christians or not, I notice we sorta model our lives after what they said (Paul Luke Mathew John etc.).

[falklands]

Well, I concede this argument. It's not that I'm going to go around proclaiming that Jesus drank alcohol, but simply that my arguments were rather illogical. Other arguments for my position might have been more logical, but I don't know them at the moment. However, I will debate the other points.

heartofgold said:

Well, this is a little fuzzy. What I'm more interested in the belief that the Eucharist is Christ now. To tell you the honest truth, I'm not entirely sure what Catholics think the bread and wine were before Jesus' death (I could find out if you're madly curious).

Yes, please find out. I am prepared to debate the Eucharist to the bitter end ;D

As for Ignatius, I have no reason to accept his word as gospel, seeing as his words are never included in the Bible.

But he was a disciple of John! How did he get it wrong? He's sitting there soaking in every word John says, and then some how manages to twist it into something totally different?

Consider this: You can't know that he got everything correctly? Other influences could easily have affected him. Since you are taking a tiny selection from just one of his letters on one single issue, you're claiming that because he used to be a disciple of John, every paragraph on every issue he wrote on is entirely correct. It seems like the main proofs people offer for the Eucharist come from outside the Bible.

[heartofgold]

Yes, please find out. I am prepared to debate the Eucharist to the bitter end ;D

I'm getting there. I will have an answer in the next twenty-four hours (I hope). But I didn't want to make everyone dizzy with anticipation of my wonderful next post.

Consider this: You can't know that he got everything correctly? Other influences could easily have affected him. Since you are taking a tiny selection from just one of his letters on one single issue, you're claiming that because he used to be a disciple of John, every paragraph on every issue he wrote on is entirely correct. It seems like the main proofs people offer for the Eucharist come from outside the Bible.

The problem is if we assume most of the church fathers heard wrong (and yes they did, Ignatius isn't the only one I've got), well first off, that's a problem. But second, we can now wonder if the disciples heard it right. This is great though, because now I can take any part of scripture I don't like and say they didn't hear right.
Scripture wasn't something that fell from the sky in a beam of light. People wrote it. And there was a lot of stuff that didn't end up in scripture because people didn't consider it inspired scripture (like the Gospel of Thomas). Not to negate it in any way, but its entirely possible that they heard wrong too. So now we can go on and on. After all, it was the church fathers who heard wrong that pieced the bible together.

[heartofgold]

OK, I can now officially say yes, it would have been his spiritual body and during the last supper.
Spirtual is a key word here though. You have to realise we're not saying he took a chunk out of his arm and said, "here, eat this." Its his spiritual body and . We're not cannibles, if it makes you feel any better.

[falklands]

I tend to think it is a representation of his body and blood. There are more arguments against the Eucharist I've got somewhere, but right now there's one issue I want to go back to: Mary. It seems like so much doctrine about Mary is based on the verse "full of grace". The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament, neither one is in reference to Mary. One is in reference to Christ, and the other is in reference to Stephen, a sinner.

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit(Acts 6:3,5). But Stephen was a sinner.

But the version that the Catholic Church gets their doctrines from is the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. What do all the other versions say?

American Standard Version - "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
English Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
King James Version- "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
New American Standard Bible - "And coming in, he said to her, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
New International Version - "The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
New King James Version - "And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
Revised Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, “'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”

What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

[heartofgold]

I tend to think it is a representation of his body and blood. There are more arguments against the Eucharist I've got somewhere, but right now there's one issue I want to go back to: Mary. It seems like so much doctrine about Mary is based on the verse "full of grace". The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament, neither one is in reference to Mary. One is in reference to Christ, and the other is in reference to Stephen, a sinner.

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit(Acts 6:3,5). But Stephen was a sinner.

But the version that the Catholic Church gets their doctrines from is the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. What do all the other versions say?

American Standard Version - "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
English Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
King James Version- "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
New American Standard Bible - "And coming in, he said to her, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
New International Version - "The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
New King James Version - "And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
Revised Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, “'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”

What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

Well, the proof doesn't come from this verse. If Mary was sinless, however, he would have been alluding to her sinless state with whatever phrase he used. But that relies on the assumption that she's sinless to begin with.

Basically, the whole point of the doctrine is Mary, being Christ's mother, had to be kept clean as she was the tabernacle for Christ. That meant she had to be sinless, have perpetual virginity, all that jazz.

Now, because I can ;D, I'm going to give you an answer to the well quoted statement, "a lot of Catholic belief comes from outside the bible."

(2 Thessalonians 2:15)
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Now, as you can see here, the bible itself says you shouldn't use the bible alone, but that you should listen to what the church fathers say. All the church fathers believed in the immaculate conception, and these were people who some of their lives overlapped.
This is also why I don't think Mary had any children. Where did they go? There were a bunch of church fathers, and none of them thought Mary had any children. Also, these were the siblings of Christ, how did they just vanish into history? Basically, either the church shut them up, which I doubt, or they didn't exist. More proof is found when Jesus gives Mary to John on the cross telling him to take care of her. If he's got all these brothers and sisters, isn't this just a slap in the face? Wouldn't he tell them to take care of their own mother?
Anyway, this is a big part. There's a lot of Catholic tradition, such as not just using the bible, but also listening to what church fathers had to say. The Bible Alone theory just doesn't work with this verse.

[gynovia]

heartofgold said:

We're not cannibles, if it makes you feel any better.

whew! was alittle worried there..... haha jk ;D

[falklands]

Ahhh...we're getting into Sacred Tradition and the Bible here...the Roman Catholic Church holds that they are the same

Obviously, a LOT more than what is EVER mentioned in the Bible is said of Mary, sometimes even to the point of making it not quite agree with the Bible. Here's some of it I got from somewhere. Even all of the Early Church Fathers didn't believe this much....

She remained a virgin after the birth of Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510). She is "The mother of the members of Christ" (par. 963). She was "Preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Catechism, par. 966). She is "Queen over all things" (par. 966). By Mary’s prayers, she delivers souls from death (par. 966). Mary, "...by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" (par. 969). "The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, are an ‘epitome of the whole Gospel,’" (par. 971). Mary, "...when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven..." (par. 974). "...when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son..." (Vatican Council II, p. 420). "Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son" (Vatican Council II, p. 421). "This mother...is waiting and preparing your home for you" (Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p.31).

"Mary is undoubtedly blessed among women (Luke 1:42). But, is it appropriate to attribute to her such titles as "Our Queen, Our Mother, Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope"? I cannot see how it is. Was she sinless? It would seem not since she said she needed a savior in Luke 1:47, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Did she remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Again, it seems not since Matt. 1:25 says that Joseph, ". . .kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Does she mediate and intercede for sinners? Again, the scriptures seem to contradict this when it states that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Is she exalted above all angels? There is no scripture stating so. Can she simultaneously hear the prayers of countless people all over the world in different languages? Again, there is nothing in God's word to lead us to believe this."

And various doctrines about her have been "revealed" throughout the centuries...

Mary is called the Mother of God 431
Prayers offered to Mary 600
Immaculate Conception (that she was sinless) 1854
Assumption of Mary 1950
Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church 1965



I'll debate about Sacred Tradition later...

[Teckor]

lol, well, it's nice to see that the "wine" arguement has finally settled.

Personally though, God is the only "sinless" being (note: Jesus is God, as strange as incomprehensable as that is).

[Geberia]

Yes, a little thing about the wine - they drank it in those days because it was more pure than water would be. It was actually safer to drink.

"For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23. If you say that Mary was sinless, you are contradiciting the word of God. "Even so as by one man ( talking of Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all men have sinned." If Mary was sinless that means she wouldn't have died.

[falklands]

The Catholics are divided on whether she actually died or not...

[heartofgold]

"Mary is undoubtedly blessed among women (Luke 1:42). But, is it appropriate to attribute to her such titles as "Our Queen, Our Mother, Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope"? I cannot see how it is.

Well, she was the mother of Christ, making her the mother of the church. I think that would be enough to call her that.

Was she sinless? It would seem not since she said she needed a savior in Luke 1:47, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."

Now, I know I've been through this before, but I'll do it again anyway. She did need a saviour, but that doesn't stop her from being sinless. Look back at the hole. Why is pulling a guy out of the hold, and not letting someone fall into the hole different? There both grace. By the grace of God she was preserved from all sin. Without her saviour she and John Doe both end up skeletal remains at the bottom of the hole.

Did she remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Again, it seems not since Matt. 1:25 says that Joseph, ". . .kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

But God stuck Jesus in there. Joseph had nothing to do with it. If I may say something profound here, she never had sex. That's what were saying.

Does she mediate and intercede for sinners? Again, the scriptures seem to contradict this when it states that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man

Well, this goes back to asking saints to pray for us. So here we go.

Probably the best way to look at this is by using the Body of Christ. The church is the body of Christ, and there's only body. Death doesn't separate you from the body. So you can still ask them to pray for you and, in return, pray for them. If Christ was the only mediator in the light your casting him in, we couldn't ask anyone to pray for us.

Is she exalted above all angels? There is no scripture stating so.

Well, scripture, as you said, doesn't state everything about Mary. It leaves a lot to be assumed. We assumed that, as the mother of God, she had done something above anything any angel ever did.

Can she simultaneously hear the prayers of countless people all over the world in different languages? Again, there is nothing in God's word to lead us to believe this."

Well, she's in heaven. The constraints of her body are gone (sorda, but now I'm getting on the assumption). It wouldn't be that hard.

And various doctrines about her have been "revealed" throughout the centuries...

Mary is called the Mother of God 431
Prayers offered to Mary 600
Immaculate Conception (that she was sinless) 1854
Assumption of Mary 1950
Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church 1965

None of this stuff was "reveled." It was more of a final confirmation of the doctrine. All of this has been believed for hundreds of years, but only recently has any doubt about it come up, so now they've made it official. But the Church doesn't just introduce totally new concepts.

"For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23. If you say that Mary was sinless, you are contradiciting the word of God.

I did this one too, but apparently nobody listened. That's not good.
If you take this verse completely litteraly, you run into problems, such as aborted babies, or severely retarded people. These people can't sin, so they are sinless. So obviously there are special categories of people who are exempt from this verse. Mary would be one being the mother of God.

"Even so as by one man ( talking of Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all men have sinned." If Mary was sinless that means she wouldn't have died.

Well, now I'm really in the assumption, so I'm just going to give you the doctrine. Mary shared everything Christ did, being his mother. Continuing on this track, that makes it necessary to have ascended, body and soul, up into heaven. Some say she never actually died, but that fact that she was sharing with Christ makes this unlikely. Its more likely, then, that she did die, then rose again and went on up. Christ was sinless and he had to die, but he rose again. Following this train of though, if Mary was sinless, she needed to die, then rise again.

[Teckor]

... Personally, Mary is "granted" about as much powers as the Pope.

Also, the conception of Jesus in her doesn't necessariy mean that she was "sinless", but God had a particular reasons for choosing her.

[falklands]

heartofgold said:

Well, she was the mother of Christ, making her the mother of the church. I think that would be enough to call her that.

"Our Life"? "Our Hope"? "Our Queen"? Mary was a very blessed woman, but I don't think that she is worthy of adoration and praise.

Now, I know I've been through this before, but I'll do it again anyway. She did need a saviour, but that doesn't stop her from being sinless. Look back at the hole. Why is pulling a guy out of the hold, and not letting someone fall into the hole different? There both grace. By the grace of God she was preserved from all sin. Without her saviour she and John Doe both end up skeletal remains at the bottom of the hole.

Hence no glory should be given her for her condition (assuming that she was sinless). It was all God's work. When you think of Mary, you should adore God and not Mary.

But God stuck Jesus in there. Joseph had nothing to do with it. If I may say something profound here, she never had sex. That's what were saying.

Um, the quote...? Joseph, ". . .kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son." God stuck Jesus in there while Mary was still a virgin. "After she gave birth to a Son" she no longer became a virgin. That's what the Bible is saying. Is it so terrible to fulfill God's design for man and woman? If Mary is likened to Eve, it doesn't follow that she should be in perpetual virginity. Another coupla Bible quotes:

" Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" "

"In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenter’s father? In other words, ‘mother’ here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though ‘carpenter’s son’ refers to Joseph, and ‘mother’ refers to Mary, ‘brothers’ does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers." Is that such a bad thing? One more thing:

"Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’"
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." God’s will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary."

Well, this goes back to asking saints to pray for us. So here we go.

Probably the best way to look at this is by using the Body of Christ. The church is the body of Christ, and there's only body. Death doesn't separate you from the body. So you can still ask them to pray for you and, in return, pray for them. If Christ was the only mediator in the light your casting him in, we couldn't ask anyone to pray for us.

Well, only Christ mediates between God and Man. It's what the Scripture says and we cannot deny it. Asking someone to pray for you is not making them a mediator between God and you. They're in their own relationship with Christ, even if they're praying for someone else. Mary (assuming she can hear the prayers of everyone - which I don't actually believe) is the same.

Well, scripture, as you said, doesn't state everything about Mary. It leaves a lot to be assumed. We assumed that, as the mother of God, she had done something above anything any angel ever did.

Ok, right, I'm going to agree with all of your "assumptions"... ;D

Well, she's in heaven. The constraints of her body are gone (sorda, but now I'm getting on the assumption). It wouldn't be that hard.

So in heaven we're sorda omniscient? If Mary could hear every single prayer directed to her at every time, simultaneously praying for them at every time, she'd be pretty busy...

None of this stuff was "reveled." It was more of a final confirmation of the doctrine. All of this has been believed for hundreds of years, but only recently has any doubt about it come up, so now they've made it official. But the Church doesn't just introduce totally new concepts.

...Conceded. But some people believing particular things about Mary for hundreds of years doesn't exactly make them right. I suppose there are quite a few things not "officially" confirmed by the Catholic Church that it may or may not decide "oh, that one's right, the other one's not..."

I did this one too, but apparently nobody listened. That's not good.
If you take this verse completely litteraly, you run into problems, such as aborted babies, or severely retarded people. These people can't sin, so they are sinless. So obviously there are special categories of people who are exempt from this verse. Mary would be one being the mother of God.

Would she, eh? What's important is that she was a woman of God, rejoicing in "God her saviour" and that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. And yes, I listened. But you're assuming that we agree that Mary has to be sinless...

Well, now I'm really in the assumption, so I'm just going to give you the doctrine. Mary shared everything Christ did, being his mother. Continuing on this track, that makes it necessary to have ascended, body and soul, up into heaven. Some say she never actually died, but that fact that she was sharing with Christ makes this unlikely. Its more likely, then, that she did die, then rose again and went on up. Christ was sinless and he had to die, but he rose again. Following this train of though, if Mary was sinless, she needed to die, then rise again.

"Mary shared everything Christ did, being his mother." What a unique circumstance...I'm sure no other mother and son in the whole history of mankind has ever remotely had that sort of thing. I can't quite see the logic leading to that conclusion...it's an assumed Assumption...

[heartofgold]

"Our Life"? "Our Hope"? "Our Queen"? Mary was a very blessed woman, but I don't think that she is worthy of adoration and praise.

Well, sorry. I do. She did a lot more than you give her credit for. She raised Christ, taught him, and in so doing, raised the church. That would make the queen of the church.

Hence no glory should be given her for her condition (assuming that she was sinless). It was all God's work. When you think of Mary, you should adore God and not Mary.

But you have to realize that now she is what we want to be. She is the absolute prototype for what we all want to become. As the first person to achieve that, she's worthy of the praise.

Um, the quote...? Joseph, ". . .kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son." God stuck Jesus in there while Mary was still a virgin. "After she gave birth to a Son" she no longer became a virgin. That's what the Bible is saying. Is it so terrible to fulfill God's design for man and woman? If Mary is likened to Eve, it doesn't follow that she should be in perpetual virginity

Except that Eve wouldn't have given birth to anybody if she hadn't fallen. God's design would have involved Joseph, it didn't so obviously this wasn't Gods design for man and woman.

Another coupla Bible quotes:

" Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" "

"In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenter’s father? In other words, ‘mother’ here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though ‘carpenter’s son’ refers to Joseph, and ‘mother’ refers to Mary, ‘brothers’ does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers." Is that such a bad thing?

The reason I can switch contextual meaning is because they didn't have any word for cousin. Its not even necessarily cousin, they could have been his Father's half brother's second cousin twice removed's former roommate for all we know. Like Lot being Abraham's brother when he was really his nephew. They couldn't write Father, Mother, then cousins. They didn't have the word. What your saying relies on the assumption that they could write cousin, they couldn't. Father, Mother, brother could mean any number of things in their language. Its not English, which for what your saying to make sense it has to be.

One more thing:

"Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’"
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." God’s will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary."

Why? So he quoted on psalm out of 150 twice in the bible, and by a startling coincidence, the guy who wrote the psalm had brothers and sisters. I quote David all the time (well, actually I quote Douglas Adams more than him, but bear with me here), does that make me just like him? Well, obviously not, or else I'd be sending guys to the front lines so I could marry their wives. I'm also not just like Douglas Adams even though I quote him all the time. He was an atheist, and a pretty good one too. Just because he quotes one of the psalms doesn't make him exactly like the psalmist.

Well, only Christ mediates between God and Man. It's what the Scripture says and we cannot deny it. Asking someone to pray for you is not making them a mediator between God and you. They're in their own relationship with Christ, even if they're praying for someone else. Mary (assuming she can hear the prayers of everyone - which I don't actually believe) is the same.

Well first off, this is somewhere we're definitely not connecting. "Its just you and God" doesn't fly with me. Its a community, its the church. That's why there's confession. If broke a window, them felt bad about it and confessed it to God, does it do any good? No, you've still got to tell the guy who's window you broke. The Church is a community, not just a gathering place where every body's personal relationship with God comes together.
Second, so why can't I ask Mary to pray for me? That's what we're doing when we say the Hail Mary, why can I ask the drug-addict next door (I don't have a drug-addict next door, but bear with me), but not the mother of God? I think she's perfectly entitled to pray for anyone.
Third, she's in a completely different dimension now, who knows how she can do it. She doesn't even live in time anymore, maybe she answered them one at a time. I don't know, how does God answer them all? We don't know, never will know, and its all too mysterious to figure out.

So in heaven we're sorda omniscient? If Mary could hear every single prayer directed to her at every time, simultaneously praying for them at every time, she'd be pretty busy...

Well, look above. I don't know, completely other dimension.

...Conceded. But some people believing particular things about Mary for hundreds of years doesn't exactly make them right. I suppose there are quite a few things not "officially" confirmed by the Catholic Church that it may or may not decide "oh, that one's right, the other one's not..."

Well the point is everybody believed this for hundreds of years. Its kinda like the Trinity. Every Christian has and will believe in the Trinity, but it technical wasn't official for about three hundred years. This is actually one thing in Mary's favor, everybody believed it and has believed it for a long time. So either the Church was abandoned by God, or its right.

Would she, eh? What's important is that she was a woman of God, rejoicing in "God her saviour" and that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. And yes, I listened. But you're assuming that we agree that Mary has to be sinless...

Well my point is, your kinda attacking the wrong thing. Most of the stuff about Mary stems from her being sinless in the first place. After that its just how you interpret it. But now we're slightly more on track.
She's sinless 'cause she's the tabernacle for one thing, she had to be kept clean. She's sinless mainly because yes, she's the mother of God. That's kinda scary isn't it, Jesus being raised by a sinner? Woops, taught him to smoke, drink and drive, now humanity is doomed. That, combined with the fact that this is just such an ancient tradition, possibly stemming from people who knew Mary, made it pretty convincing for the rest of the Early Church.

"Mary shared everything Christ did, being his mother." What a unique circumstance...I'm sure no other mother and son in the whole history of mankind has ever remotely had that sort of thing. I can't quite see the logic leading to that conclusion...it's an assumed Assumption...

Well, there are a couple of things that point to the assumption. One, though this won't mean anything to you, this is just such an ancient, ancient, ancient tradition. Waaaaay back there.
Second, and probable the most convincing, is the lack of relics. The church has a lot of relics from saints, but there aren't any from the most important saint of all. Trust me, if she had died, people would have swarmed all over the grave sight, digging up bones, put caution tape around it, so on. But everything, all evidence of her, just vanished. Where, why into the sky of course.
The other logic is that was the end of all the sinless and righteous people, they went up. Elijah and a couple other Old Testament guys, Jesus, then, if Mary is sinless, which once again this is something Catholics assume so that's where this comes from, she would have gone up too.

Bob?

Who's he? And do you actually know anybody (under the age of 18) who actually goes by Bob? Just wondering, 'cause I don't... (insert Twilight Zone music here).

[Geberia]

heartofgold said:

1)Well, sorry. I do. She did a lot more than you give her credit for. She raised Christ, taught him, and in so doing, raised the church. That would make the queen of the church.



2)But you have to realize that now she is what we want to be. She is the absolute prototype for what we all want to become. As the first person to achieve that, she's worthy of the praise.


3)Well my point is, your kinda attacking the wrong thing. Most of the stuff about Mary stems from her being sinless in the first place. After that its just how you interpret it. But now we're slightly more on track.
She's sinless 'cause she's the tabernacle for one thing, she had to be kept clean. She's sinless mainly because yes, she's the mother of God. That's kinda scary isn't it, Jesus being raised by a sinner? Woops, taught him to smoke, drink and drive, now humanity is doomed. That, combined with the fact that this is just such an ancient tradition, possibly stemming from people who knew Mary, made it pretty convincing for the rest of the Early Church.


4) Well, there are a couple of things that point to the assumption. One, though this won't mean anything to you, this is just such an ancient, ancient, ancient tradition. Waaaaay back there.
Second, and probable the most convincing, is the lack of relics. The church has a lot of relics from saints, but there aren't any from the most important saint of all. Trust me, if she had died, people would have swarmed all over the grave sight, digging up bones, put caution tape around it, so on. But everything, all evidence of her, just vanished. Where, why into the sky of course.
The other logic is that was the end of all the sinless and righteous people, they went up. Elijah and a couple other Old Testament guys, Jesus, then, if Mary is sinless, which once again this is something Catholics assume so that's where this comes from, she would have gone up too.

I've added numbers by your statements, HoG, just so i can keep track of all of them. LOL.

1) Well, Joseph raised Christ too! He was the one who took Mary to Bethlehem after all! He taught Jesus, in fact more than Mary did because Jesus learned from his earthly father to be a carpenter. Why aren't we praising him then?
i know the answer to that question I just asked, you're going to say it was because Mary was highly favoured and she was the one bearing the child. I'm just pointing out here that Mary couldn't have done it on her own.

2) We are told to be CHRISTLIKE, not Mary-like. Christ was not copied after Mary either. I have respect for Mary, she was a great woman of faith, and was mightily used by God, but no where in the Bible does it say that she is to be followed as greatly as Christ.

3) Sin is not a hole everyone ( besides Mary, followingn your theory) falls into. It is something that happens to everyone able to comprehend that they are sinners! "Death passed upon all men," it says. God left a choice of sin or no sin up to Adam, and he blew it. Now, according to the Word of God, we are all sinners. God has already done the best he can to save us; he gave his only son. Now he leaves a conscious decision up to us - are we going to accept his gift or not? He gives us freedom to make our own decision about our eternity, and he does not save some and let others choose. So I'm saying that sin is something all people who are able to realize that they are sinners fall into, and when we conscientiosly ask God to save us, he does, and then we're out of that hole. Again, according to the rules that God set up when Adam sinned, everyone was a sinner. God cannot deny his own rules.

4) I have no doubt that Mary is in heaven. But maybe one reason why her bones are not being digged up is because either 1) she was in the assumption, as you said 2) she died and then was resserected (sp?) or 3) she just died and her bones are here on earth because she wasn't important.
If Mary is so important, why does she only come in a few chapters in the Bible? If she was so special, why is her acension and/ or death not written in the scriptures? If she is really as holy and sinless as you claim, surely the Bible would have much more to say about her, then spending so much time on the life of othe men like Paul. How come nobody wrote down Mary's words as they did Jesus'? Because she was just a tool, sinful yet saved, used by God.

Frankly, why would I pray to Mary when I can just pray to God?

[heartofgold]

1) Well, Joseph raised Christ too! He was the one who took Mary to Bethlehem after all! He taught Jesus, in fact more than Mary did because Jesus learned from his earthly father to be a carpenter. Why aren't we praising him then?
i know the answer to that question I just asked, you're going to say it was because Mary was highly favoured and she was the one bearing the child. I'm just pointing out here that Mary couldn't have done it on her own.

Well, key differences between Mary and Joseph. One, the angel appeared to Mary and told her what was going on. Two, yes, Mary did bear Jesus all by herself, Joseph had nothing to do with. Three, trust me, I don't think it was any different than then it is now. When your little your gonna spend more time with your mom.
Not to say Joseph wasn't special at all. He's a saint and all that, but he wasn't the key component.

2) We are told to be CHRISTLIKE, not Mary-like. Christ was not copied after Mary either. I have respect for Mary, she was a great woman of faith, and was mightily used by God, but no where in the Bible does it say that she is to be followed as greatly as Christ.

But Mary tried and achieved it. That's why she's referred to as the new Eve. Eve was given a choice, eat the apple or don't. She ate the apple. Mary was given a choice, do what God wants or tell him to take a hike. She did the right thing. In so doing she became what we all want to become. She heard God's word and obeyed it. Combined with the fact that its easier to relate to a human than to God, its just easier to think of trying to be like Mary. And in essence, like Christ.

3) Sin is not a hole everyone ( besides Mary, followingn your theory) falls into. It is something that happens to everyone able to comprehend that they are sinners! "Death passed upon all men," it says. God left a choice of sin or no sin up to Adam, and he blew it. Now, according to the Word of God, we are all sinners. God has already done the best he can to save us; he gave his only son. Now he leaves a conscious decision up to us - are we going to accept his gift or not? He gives us freedom to make our own decision about our eternity, and he does not save some and let others choose. So I'm saying that sin is something all people who are able to realize that they are sinners fall into, and when we conscientiosly ask God to save us, he does, and then we're out of that hole. Again, according to the rules that God set up when Adam sinned, everyone was a sinner. God cannot deny his own rules.

Well, if we're back to "everybody sins," look above. The hole was an allegory, and a pretty good one too I thought. If I walk down the street and fall in the hole, and you pull me out, you saved me, right? Now, if I'm walking down the street and you run out and stop me from falling in the hole in the first place, you still saved me. There isn't any difference. Sin can be viewed as a hole which most of us fall into. But there isn't any difference between falling in the hole and getting pulled out, and being stopped from falling in the hole in the first place.

4) I have no doubt that Mary is in heaven. But maybe one reason why her bones are not being digged up is because either 1) she was in the assumption, as you said 2) she died and then was resserected (sp?) or 3) she just died and her bones are here on earth because she wasn't important.
If Mary is so important, why does she only come in a few chapters in the Bible? If she was so special, why is her acension and/ or death not written in the scriptures? If she is really as holy and sinless as you claim, surely the Bible would have much more to say about her, then spending so much time on the life of othe men like Paul. How come nobody wrote down Mary's words as they did Jesus'? Because she was just a tool, sinful yet saved, used by God.

Well, 1 and 2 are the same thing. Most people believe she was resurrected, then ascended. But 3 doesn't make any sense at all. All the Early Christians thought she was extremely important. They would have been all over her as soon as she died.
Well, sorry about the bible. The people who put together the bible sure thought she was important. You have to realise she's usually lurking in the shadows in the bible. It sounds like she wasn't very conspicuous. Its entirely possible the guys writing the bible just didn't think about her.
But I don't know, I'll ask later.

Frankly, why would I pray to Mary when I can just pray to God?

WE'RE NOT PRAYING TO MARY!!!!!!!!!!! We're asking her to pray for us. There's a big difference.

[Geberia]

Until you fall into that hole, there is no reason I should save you. Why would you be in need of saving unless you had fallen into that hole?
Once Adam and Eve sinned, that was it. No one had a choice given to them as you say Mary did. We are all born with sin. We are born in that hole.
Oh, and an angel did appear to Joseph as well.

[heartofgold]

Until you fall into that hole, there is no reason I should save you. Why would you be in need of saving unless you had fallen into that hole?

Alright fine, we'll use a different one. If you see a guy with a rope about to tie me to a railroad track, do you wait until the train is coming along before you untie me? Or do you run out with six-shooter drawn blasting away ;D (love westerns).

Once Adam and Eve sinned, that was it. No one had a choice given to them as you say Mary did. We are all born with sin. We are born in that hole.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, and its kinda what we're debating in the first place.

Oh, and an angel did appear to Joseph as well.

Well once an angel appeared to him yes. But Gabriel didn't appear to him saying, "You're gonna bear a son, get over it."

[gynovia]

heartofgold said:

Alright fine, we'll use a different one. If you see a guy with a rope about to tie me to a railroad track, do you wait until the train is coming along before you untie me? Or do you run out with six-shooter drawn blasting away ;D (love westerns).

ummm, and how, exactly does this apply to Mary?

[heartofgold]

ummm, and how, exactly does this apply to Mary?

Mary didn't sin, but still needed a saviour.