Wow! I'm truly impressed! You folks are way out of my league!

I just sent a PM to a person suggesting that they research the, "Divine Mysteries" of the Catholic Church. If my memories are close, the Her status is within that section of the Church's teachings.

By the way, if the Bible is to be the one and only source for God's Words, and we know that the Bible is a collection of books, why are there so may Narratives and Study Guides. In a simplistic view His words are His words, why change them. Why do some study guides twist their meanings in some places and some other sections.

I certainly am not a Religious Scholar, I have up to a 2nd. Year HS Catholic Education and some studies, 3 yrs, of training to become a Catholic Deacon. I am not certified to pontificate the Catholic Church's positions on matters of Faith.

But I do know that I cannot for a minute believe that the Bible written some 2000 years ago is the entire summary of God. Did God inspire the writing of the Bible and then throw up His/Her hands, walk away and, "You guys figure it out."

Don,

You raise some excellent points about the Bible. I would answer that the main reason there are so many study guides etc. is because it was written so long ago, and it refers to customs, practices and world situations that are foreign to us in the 21st century. If we're going to try to understand it, we need to do so on its own terms. The problem is, a lot of the time we really don't know what those terms are.

My constant hammering away at the nature of apocalyptic literature is a good example. Too many well-meaning people look at a book like Revelation and think it's to be interpreted literally, like one of St. Paul's epistles or the books of Kings or something, and they get themselves into a ridiculous mess because they don't understand the nature of what John was writing.

As for whether the Bible is the total of God's revelation, what else is needed? The Mormons claim that we need Joseph Smith's "revelation" because things are so different now than they were in Bible times. But the important things are exactly the same: the human heart is corrupt and in need of redemption. That's the core of what the Bible is all about, and I haven't see anything, whether in any church's tradition or in somebody's purported "new revelation" that adds anything useful to that.

As always, Your Mileage May Vary, and that's fine. I'm not trying to convert you to or away from anything, just hoping to give an answer to your question. How'd I do?

Dave,

You did fine.

For me, to assist in understanding the Bible messages, you need to understand the full history of the peoples and times, cultures, events surrounding the writings, then you would need to adapt those writings to apply to our time and cultures. The same can be said for the writings of Shakespeare or J.F. Cooper.

The nuances are lost upon the reader unless he/she fully understands what is behind the words.

Let me ask several questions. I do request your generosity in bearing with me as I am certainly not a Bibilical Scholar but here goes.

I am Roman Catholic.

Were the abuses within the Catholic Church that spawned the Protestant Reformation real?

History tells us that they were.

Are those abuses still present with the Doctrines and Teachings of the Catholic Church?

Are there not enough new abuses to keep everyone busy now?

Is the Catholic Church perfect? Absolutely not. It is made up of mankind. Male and Female. People, some of which are flawed seriously and some who are mildly flawed. Some are normal (loosely used term).

However, with all that out of the way, has the stated documents of Faith and Practices deviated from a true and diligent study and devotion to its core belief system.

I'd like to posit one more question, please. If the Roman Catholic Church has changed or answered the valid issues raised the various Schisms, then why is there still a war (albeit of words) still raging now?

dwashbur,
There is still the problem of Enoch. He walked with God and then was taken away so as not to see death. This "exception" to Romans 5:12 needs explaining if you are to insist that Romans 5:12 applies to everyone singularly.

In regards to the following quote:

"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'whole' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

You wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

You really need to take a course in Bible interpretation from someplace reputable, because this is, pardon me, ridiculous.

---

So I looked up Charles Spurgeon to see who he was and found out that:

"Charles Haddon (C.H.) Spurgeon (June 19, 1834 – January 31, 1892) was a British Particular Baptist preacher who remains highly influential among Christians of different denominations, among whom he is still known as the 'Prince of Preachers.'..."

You would rather I listen to your explanation of Scripture over the 'Prince of Preachers'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

You also need to depend a LOT less on Strong's, because it's so badly outdated it's virtually useless for definitions etc. The only reason so many sites and such continue to use it is because it's public domain and they don't have to pay royalties for it.

---

This is the first time that I have used Strong's so I can't depend a LOT less on it!

Also I find it very intriguing that you think that Strong's is badly outdated, considering that Scripture was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and those written words are still the same today as they were when they first were written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

The Bible makes it clear when and where "all" means "every single one," and the Romans passages are in that category. Get used to it.

---

Obviously not clear enough as I, and many others, disagree with this meaning for "all" as used in Romans. This highlights the problem with the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". You have your interpretation of what Romans means and I have mine. They disagree so which is the correct interpretation? "Sola Scriptura" provides no way in which to resolve this impasse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

Dave,

You did fine.

For me, to assist in understanding the Bible messages, you need to understand the full history of the peoples and times, cultures, events surrounding the writings, then you would need to adapt those writings to apply to our time and cultures. The same can be said for the writings of Shakespeare or J.F. Cooper.

The nuances are lost upon the reader unless he/she fully understands what is behind the words.

---

I couldn't agree more.

Quote:

---

Let me ask several questions. I do request your generosity in bearing with me as I am certainly not a Bibilical Scholar but here goes.

---

No problem.

Quote:

---

I am Roman Catholic.

---

I sort of got that impression ;)

Quote:

---

Were the abuses within the Catholic Church that spawned the Protestant Reformation real?

History tells us that they were.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Are those abuses still present with the Doctrines and Teachings of the Catholic Church?

---

That, I don't know. You're in a better position to answer than I am, but as far as I know things like the sale of indulgences are no longer there.

Quote:

---

Are there not enough new abuses to keep everyone busy now?

Is the Catholic Church perfect? Absolutely not. It is made up of mankind. Male and Female. People, some of which are flawed seriously and some who are mildly flawed. Some are normal (loosely used term).

---

Like every other church. Jesus could have a pretty good church on earth if it wasn't for all those darn people...

Quote:

---

However, with all that out of the way, has the stated documents of Faith and Practices deviated from a true and diligent study and devotion to its core belief system.

---

I'm not sure I follow you here. By "its" do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? Once again, I don't really have the answer. I served as a musician in a Catholic church in Idaho for about a year, playing keyboard and singing for a Life Teen Mass, but that's as close as I've been to it. I've read some of the documents of Vatican II and that's about it.

Quote:

---

I'd like to posit one more question, please. If the Roman Catholic Church has changed or answered the valid issues raised the various Schisms, then why is there still a war (albeit of words) still raging now?

---

I quite agree. I would rather focus on the things we agree about, but I seem to be in the minority. There are a few things that I can sort of point to, such as those who say "Your tradition is different from mine so it's gotta be wrong!" and similar stuff. There's the fact that the RCC is high-visibility, easily the most well-known denomination, and hence an easy target. Some protestant groups have a long history of Catholic-hating that they don't want to give up.

But ultimately, I think the real issue comes down to authority. Most protestants are adamant about the "sola scriptura" authority and the individual Christian's right to interpret it, whereas the RCC sees authority in both scripture and the established, institutional church. When everything is reduced to its essence, I believe that's the bottom line. And I don't see any resolution on the horizon.

Whaddaya think?

I suppose it is interesting how we are told not to call any religious teacher "Father" and yet Catholic openly do so

Ya got me there. Who told me that?

The only person we call Father is an anointed Priest. Yes Priests can be teachers. But they are Priests first.

However, teachers can also be Irish Christian Brothers who are addressed as Brother. They can be Nuns, who are addressed as Sister, they can also be lay people who are addressed as Mr. or Miss/Mrs.

Dave,

While you served as a musician, did you listen to the prayers that were spoken during the Mass? Did you find meaning and reverence in them?

As to your comment, Jesus would have... if not for the people", all I can say is Amen!

As to "sola scriptura", I disagree with the concept. Not because of RCC rules, but because I think it becomes a "Tower of Babel" situation. If everyone one interprets the bible to suit there understanding then proclaims there understanding of the Bible to others who don't see it the same way, you get discord, not unity of Faith. You lose the message in the fight to get your point over on the disagreeing people.

That's is just my opinion, I don't offer that as a Catholic position.

Wondergirl: Sneaky way to get the last word. :)

You are correct, however, I will add to your thought.

Just as it follows that God could have created a Sinless Mother to bear His/Her Son.

If you were God (I know its not a fair form of question because neither of us can be God) and you had the power to create the Mother of your child. What would you do?

Would you place Your child in a corrupted human or would you choose to create a pristine human being to hold your child?

Please forgive the simplistic questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

dwashbur,
there is still the problem of Enoch. He walked with God and then was taken away so as not to see death.

---

Got a questin for you Elscarta. Why is Enoch the only one you mention that didn't see death. Elijah too was taken up. Is there a reason you only mention Enoch? Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

Dave,

While you served as a musician, did you listen to the prayers that were spoken during the Mass? Did you find meaning and reverence in them?

---

Don,
Most definitely I did. I'm not sure what you're getting at (it's still early and I've only had one cup of coffee), but if you mean, was I genuinely able to worship during the Mass, oh yeah. I had to "filter" some things out as I prayed along, especially stuff about Mary and that sort of thing, but the Ordinary of the Mass itself is something I can always get behind. I even wrote a setting of the Gloria for our Mass, because at the time we didn't have one and the priest just recited it with the congregation. (They wound up not using it, but just writing it was an act of worship for me.) I joined in the prayers, played from the heart, and otherwise "gave it up to God" every Mass. That's what I was there for, and it was a privilege to do so. Every so often as the team was praying before Mass, they would end with the Hail Mary. I would recite it out of respect for them and as a show of unity. I seem to be able to do that; I know there are others who can't, and I respect that as well.

Did I take communion? No. Not because I didn't want to; I would have loved to, because I love Communion of any kind, any denomination, any material, any rite. But my fellow band members knew I wasn't Catholic, and to receive it in front of them would have been disrespectful at best, blasphemous at worst. These people had welcomed me into their number as a fellow worshiper even though they knew I wasn't Catholic, and the Christian love evident in that group was something I'd love to have back. I couldn't spit in their faces like that. But I always made sure to fold my arms the proper way to receive a blessing from the priest, and those blessings are also something I'd love to have back (especially these days - long story). 3 years down the road I still correspond with some of those folks and remember the love and acceptance I got from them, and the unity of heart we had when we lifted our voices in praise. They were Catholic, I was who-knows-what, but we were all Christians and we all worshiped Jesus from the heart. It would be nice if everybody could have that.

Sheesh. Talk about rambling! Anyway, I hope I answered your question.

Incidentally, I understand your point about sola scriptura. It's not a problem for me, but I get why it is for a lot of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

Would you place Your child in a corrupted human or would you choose to create a pristine human being to hold your child?

---

That God placed His Child in a corrupted human vessel says tons about the power and love and grace of this God in giving this unmerited gift of Jesus to her and to us.

Mary was descended from Adam; therefore, Jesus was descended from Adam (Jesus = new Adam) and had inheritance in Adam (Luke 3). Jesus was fully divine ("God the Son," "the Word") and fully human ("Son of Man"). These two natures existed together, and neither overrode the other. Jesus was not half-God and half-human or both mixed into a third nature. Although the two natures were independent of each other, they acted in accord with each other.

Jesus therefore had the potential for sin--otherwise the devil would not have done his best to tempt Him in the wilderness, on the pinnacle of the temple, and on the mountain. Jesus did not succumb any of those times -- yet, He could have, but then there would have been no salvation through Him.

That Mary was human like each of us makes her the perfect example for us. Sinful just like we are, she was justified by faith when God called her to be the physical mother of His Son of God; she was sanctified when the Holy Spirit caused her to conceive Jesus in her womb. We too are justified by faith when the Holy Spirit calls us to receive Jesus; we are sanctified when the Holy Spirit creates a new nature inside of us.

WG,
Couldn't have said it better myself. The condition of the "vessel" (Mary) was irrelevant. Her willingness to trust that God knew what he was doing was all that was needed.

WG -

Okay, the point I was going after was that your point is valid about God working with a sinful vessel then my point about God working with a sinless vessel is equally valid because God pretty much does as He/She sees fit.

I know that for me God often moves in my world but rarely in the way I tell Him/Her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

I know that for me God often moves in my world but rarely in the way I tell Him/Her.

---

So doesn't it make sense that a loving God would move around in our world in a way we could understand and appreciate? I can relate to Mary much easier if I think she's just like me, rather than if she was on a plane above me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

WG -

Okay, the point I was going after was that your point is valid about God working with a sinful vessel then my point about God working with a sinless vessel is equally valid because God pretty much does as He/She sees fit.

---

So He made Mary sinless just because He could? And how did He think we could/would relate to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

WG -

Okay, the point I was going after was that your point is valid about God working with a sinful vessel then my point about God working with a sinless vessel is equally valid because God pretty much does as He/She sees fit.

I know that for me God often moves in my world but rarely in the way I tell Him/Her.

---

Good point. I guess the question is, considering what we know of how God worked with people in biblical times, which is more likely? That he worked through a sinful, though submissive, vessel, or brought about a needless immaculate conception? All through the Bible we have God working through flawed people who are trying to do his will. I honestly don't see any reason why Mary shouldn't be in that category.

Just my viewpoint; you know I respect yours as well.

First, allow me the same principle that you are claiming. If your position is that God was limited what he had here on Earth, then my position that He/She could change something to fit His/Her will is equally valid. I am certainly not saying you need to agree to my position, I am saying that my position is as valid as yours.

If God chose to make Mary sinless it is and was within His/Her power to do so.

"...we relate to it" Oh, I don't know, maybe because that's the way He/She wanted it to be. I have so little power to tell God to make things clearer and easier for me to understand. Maybe God does not care that I don't understand His/Her reason for making Mary sinless. It's not a decision I get to make. Nor is it a decision I need to make. For me it is a Dogma of my Faith that I accept and believe it to be true, and I do.

Just like the Holy Trinity, it is not easy to understand but it is fact, shall we tell God to clean up your act and make things easy for us to understand?

Why is this such a hot button for you? My Faith calls me to believe and yours does not. But it is a fact that because of this issue more than likely Protestant will not easily rejoin Catholic. Not something I like, but also something I must accept.

Edited because the post was incomplete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

First, allow me the same principle that you are claiming. If your position is that God was limited what he had here on Earth, then my position that He/She could change someting to fit His/Her will is equally valid. I am certqainly not saying you need to agree to my position, I am saying that my position is as valid as yours.

If God chose to make Mary sinless it is and was within His/Her power to do so.

---

I wouldn't say God was "limited" as much as that God wanted us to be able to identify with Mary, that He could take a flawed human being and do such a wondrous thing through her -- just as He did with Moses and King David and Paul and so many others in the Bible. Sure, He could have made ALL of them sinless and then had them do what they did, but why? Would that tell us anything? Would that give me any hope and confidence regarding God's working in MY life?

WG,

Please reread my last post. I managed to post it before I was finished writing it. Oh, well I am but mortal.

Again I say, If God could chose a sinful person God could also have chosen to create a sinless person. God's will, God's decision.

I ask you, what would set Mary apart from all the other sinful females at that particular time and space to hold His/Her Son within her and nature the new born babe.

Why would she be chosen so dramatically and within that still be given the opportunity to say no. if she was not different from the norm. I mean why didn't God pick Jane or Barbara or even Alice?