[inhisservice]

Good grief! So there'll be only RCC members in heaven? Oh, right. I get it. The rest of us will be in purgatory, repenting of our sin of being belonging to the wrong church. Isn't that fundamentalism? "I'm right, and you're not!"

No. Purgatory does not exist. That was cooked up by the RC. So that would the rest of us would go straight to Hell!!

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

I don’t worship a book; I’ll quote whoever I please.

That would you don't have any valid claims but just hollow ones. It would also prove to everyone that you just are not interested in any authentic data.

All that’s been seen thus far from the book-only crowd is empty air. You might want to show, using biblical verse – your rules, just who what and where the Church is. Have you noticed, that I have been the only one that has offered ‘Scriptural’ proof thus far – is there some sort of problem?

First of all, all the scripture you quoted did not support your points and therefore were not proofs. Secondly I had quoted a lot of verses which you just ignored.

The word "Church" means "a gathering", a religious congregation.


Church - all believers
When ever the Bible talked about the church it was talking about the gathering of the believers.

Act 5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

These verse also shows that.

Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Act 15:4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, the apostles, and the elders, to whom they told all that God had done through them.

Act 15:22 Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole church, decided to choose some men from the group and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

Rom 16:23 My host Gaius, in whose house the church meets...




Peter's position in the Church

If Peter was revered as a Pope is today the following behavior would not have happened. Those who believed that circumcision was necessary actually questioned Peter and Peter had to offer an explanation to them.

Act 11:2 When Peter went to Jerusalem, those who were in favor of circumcising Gentiles criticized him, saying,
Act 11:3 "You were a guest in the home of uncircumcised Gentiles, and you even ate with them!"


Now let us look at what Peter himself had said about the Lord.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Peter hear reveals the God's view of people. God considers everyone equal.

Paul once opposed Peter and said to his face that he was wrong. That is hardly something that one would do to the Pope or a leader.

James
When we read the Bible we might feel that Apostle James was an important person because he was one of the three that Jesus always took with Him on important occasions. That James was killed. But another James is seen in acts. In fact even Peter treated him as though he was higher in authority.

Act 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.

The following verses shows that James was someone important in the Church.

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Paul also says that James was one of the pillars of the church and seems to treat him equal to Peter.

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me....

Also note this verse:

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Peter seems to back off when people from James came. Thus James is equal in position to Peter or higher than him. Some scholars believe that this James was the leader of the Church and not Peter if at all anyone was considered a leader.

So who is this James? Paul reveals his identity.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Jesus had brothers? Mary had other children? A catholic would find this too foolish to believe because they have been taught that Mary did not have any other children besides Jesus Christ.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

I hope everyone reading this goes through their to see what I have quoted is true.

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

The only Church that existed from the time of Christ’s ascension till 1520, till now the only True Church, has been the Catholic Church.

The empty claim again. What is your evidence?

There was no other Church that was commissioned by Christ. If there was, show it in the Scriptures. Can you show scripturally where your Church came from? How did it get from 2,000 years ago till today?

You simply don't understand the meaning of the word "church". First understand what a church means. Then you will understand the rest.

How is it not? Let’s see there was only one Church in Rome, it was the same Church in 0 A.D. as it is today; how then is it not the Roman Catholic Church?

You want me to say that again. Okay hear it is. You don't understand the meaning of the word "church". First learn that.

I don’t believe the statement was made in relationship to making proof. My point was that I’m not restricted to ‘bible-only’. You maybe, inhisservice maybe are restricted to bible-only but I’m not. But, to think of it, I haven’t seen much more than complaints, at least little verse to prove or show any other Church.

I am restricted to God's word, His Scriptures. If you are not restricted that that then that explains why you are in error.

If each congregation was free to believe as they willed, how or why would Peter be concerned with doctrine at all?

Incorrect. All the congregation believed the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. They did not believe anything they willed.

These letters (among others) are called ‘Catholic’ because they are not addressed to a single congregation, but to the corporate Church. If no corporate Church existed who would he be writing to?

They were called catholic by the RC. This idea also stems from your ignorance about the meaning of the word "Church".

As for your quotations you quote from RC writers to support your claims about RC!! I wish you had a little more understanding.

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

Now I am about to refer to your post number 1021.

In fact, to have eternal life, i.e. salvation, at the very least there are two divine precepts required of an individual who are morally responsible and who aren’t ignorant (we aren’t talking intellect). First is Baptism (Cf. John 3:3-7)

The prerequisite for eternal life is only faith. John 3:3-7 is not talking about baptism in the first place.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Now coming to John 6:54-55. That scripture must be understood. We know that all non-catholics do not "eat His flesh and drink His blood". But we see that they are alive and walking around. So what life is Jesus Christ talking about? He is talking about spiritual life and not physical life. That also means that He is not talking about His physical body or blood.

[JoeT777]

The prerequisite for eternal life is only faith. John 3:3-7 is not talking about baptism in the first place.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Now coming to John 6:54-55. That scripture must be understood. We know that all non-catholics do not "eat His flesh and drink His blood". But we see that they are alive and walking around. So what life is Jesus Christ talking about? He is talking about spiritual life and not physical life. That also means that He is not talking about His physical body or blood.

Suggesting that John 6 is metaphoric denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah. He was the King of the Jews, you do remember that don’t you; He certainly wasn’t a French or German on holiday.

Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. What got the Pharaoh so mad that he went after Moses in a rage? The Pharaoh’s son was killed by the curse he had intended for Moses. Moses was warned and the ‘BLOOD’ of the sacrificial lamb was ordered to be placed over the door headers of all Israel so that the curse would ‘PASS OVER’. Since then, part of the commemoration of Passover was to sacrifice the lamb in a special feasts and customs. At the home of the Jew there was the custom of ‘Pesachim’ which included a search the house for leaven bread. The household was cleared of common bread (leavened) which represented a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn out the leaven (corruption). You might recall Paul’s words “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.” (1Cor 5: Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ’s and the Twelve.

One of the many ecclesiastic feasts and ceremonies took place over about 15-days with the festivals ending on the Saturday before the day of the Pasch (fifteenth). On day 14, the male members of the family met in the synagogue or in the Temple and sacrificed a lamb, part of which was carried home accompanied with the blood. The first born ceremonially ate the flesh of the Lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. In Judaism, this is a real sacrifice, as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice which was sacrificial prayers. We know this because of the presence of blood related to the meat, everywhere we see in scripture the reference to sacrificial meat, we’ll most always find some relationship to ‘blood.‘ Spiritual sacrifices didn't include the reference to ‘blood’. With this knowledge we can re-read John 5 and 6 keeping these images in mind.

Most of John 5 regards other spiritual rituals however there is a sense of getting ready for Pesach (Passover) This period on Judaism yearly cycles is called Shalosh R’glim. The man in the pool that was told to get up and walk, efforts to get in the cleansing water are of particular importance in Judaism. But, what’s important to us is where Christ says to his Twelve; “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” Notice that Christ appeals to their intellect as Jews - no demand for faith is made as yet, not to the heart. The Importance is that the intellect is required of the Twelve. The question asked by Christ at the end of this chapter is cataclysmic to Christians without a teaching Magisterium, “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

It’s a good question isn’t it? But we know little of Moses compared to our Jewish brothers, how then will we believe His words? The answer is in the Kingdom, His Church, His teaching Magisterium; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. But, I know you’re disagreeable, so let’s continue. The miracle of 5,000 isn’t as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened sitting on that hillside that day.

Pasch was at hand, a sacrificial lamb was required, and for the first born of the Kingdom – among 5,000 were a special Twelve. Notice it is the men that are told to sit, notice that it is bread that is feed them – we’re not told; it's likely unleavened bread. Right out of the Jewish tradition of Seder. To complete the custom we need the blood sacrifice of the Lamb for the Passover meat of the first-born.

Christ tells the first-born of his Kingdom, eat meat. He’s definitely not playing to the chick-Pharisee’s cow who wants moo miracles, you might say, ‘Punt the burger, pass the Chikin”! Not, at all! Christ says Moses' bread didn’t save. Why, because the bread of the intellect isn’t meat enough to last an eternity. The intellectual bread only lasts for this world. But, Christ will provide the beef that sticks to the soul's ribs, he says “I am that bread of life," the knowledge of the life. I am the meat that death passes over, I am the meat of life, a flesh for the life of the spiritual world; a meat for the first-born of the Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born in His Kingdom is given to us all; death will pass over.

Christ tells the Jews in John 6 that he is a REAL sacrifice, the REAL meat, the REAL presence of everlasting life. “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day.” (John 6:54). The REAL PRESENCE of CHRIST.


JoeT

[JoeT777]

So who is this James? Paul reveals his identity.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Jesus had brothers? Mary had other children? A catholic would find this too foolish to believe because they have been taught that Mary did not have any other children besides Jesus Christ.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

I hope everyone reading this goes through their to see what I have quoted is true.

Jesus is a descendent of David and the Messiah then we must conclude that Mary is the Mother of God; as her title would indicate as well as exceedingly blessed. I'll go so far as to say, that if Mary isn't Virgin, isn't Ever Virgin then there is no Messiah; as the prodigy of woman Christ would never have been accepted by any Jew, but more importantly prophesy would have lied.

The siblings of Christ are shown in the Gospel of Matthew 13:55 are obviously clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom. Clansmen who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following St. Jerome argues passionately that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:

I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother to insist that Jesus had siblings, then wouldn't that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense. [I assumed you knew the custom of the Jews with regard to widows. At or near death, the eldest remaining sibling would handover care of his mother and sisters to an immediate male family member for care – usually the eldest of the remaining sons. It would have been a BIG insult for Jesus, as the eldest son of a widow, to hand over his Mother's care to somebody outside the family. You're not claiming John was a sibling of Christ too, are you?]

The Blessed Mother Mary has a singular way of getting to the subjective heart of the 'bible-only' Christian faith. She presents a threat to Protestantism and Evangelism, simply because Christ can't be re-defined outside of the context of her virginity. Thus, to acknowledge Mary's title, 'Theotokos,' is to reject the Kingdom of God. Deny Mary and you've rejected the Messiah, reject Mary and you reject the Three Persons of the Trinity, and refuse Mary and you've refused hope of eternal life in heaven. I explain it this way:

God preserves Mary from original sin so that His Justice will prevail. “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” (Gen 3:15). In His infinite mercy God overthrows the infernal serpent through the Blessed Virgin. Those who eviscerate the Blessed Virgin Mary would stain and subjugate Mary to Satan would do well to look to the Catholic faith hold Blessed Virgin singularly preserved exempt from ALL stain of sin original sin or private sin through God's grace. Furthermore, had there been no means made available, Divine Justice would not have permitted a single human soul in heaven. A single sin shall not enter heaven

“For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), consequently any man born has this original sin. Christ being man and God was the perfect sacrifice. "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. These are two seeming diametrically opposed absolutes; one that all men are born with original sin, the stain of sin, the other that Christ was perfect without sin. But Christ is both man and God perfect on both accounts. As a result, there can only be one solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a women whose original sin had been removed. Furthermore, He would be born of a woman that hadn't known sin because of His residence within her.

Given the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 “How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN” we see God's mystical solution, rightly we conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. But, how does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment Christ was conceived God was also infused into the soul of Jesus. At that moment Mary's Womb had to have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary's womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Ark remains pure as did the Virgin Mary in her life of celibacy. Being literally full of grace, full of God, would we, could we, expect less? Would the Jewish Nation accept a Paschal Lamb any less than spotless, flawless?

St. Jerome ventures still further;

…that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Moses was ordered by God to build a Tabernacle. It contained an outer court and inner court. See Ex 25-31 and Ex 39-40. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings; he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur. Beseleel along with Ooliab built the tabernacle. In viewing the Tabernacle we move from outside inward we to a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ's warning, “narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver. On this altar is where the perfect Lamb is sacrificed.

The inner court has a antechamber containing the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread (otherwise known as The Proposition Loaves), behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant

God was resident in a place made holy by his commands to Moses to keep the Tabernacle clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God; would you suggest that it reside in an unholy place? Why then would Jesus, who is both man and God, the Word Incarnate, reside in any less a holy place?

The Tabernacle was the birth place of the Jewish religion as well as our Catholic faith. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, the consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant. But Matthew doesn't stop quoting Christ with simply “filling”, “For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” And too, we shouldn't forget that with Christ's birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God's Kingdom on earth.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into Christ at the moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, who was man with God infused. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil; it's not rent, but passes like light passes through a window. Christ now becomes the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (The Twelve). These loaves were consumed by the high Priests who were said to receive Divine knowledge. As you probably know, a Divine Hope is born out of knowledge that gives hope of obtaining the Vision of the Divine.

And just as the Jewish Kingdom of faith was born in the Ark of the Covenant, so was the Church of Jesus Christ infused in a human Ark, an ark like Noah's carrying the future of man across the waters of death, i.e. sin, within the womb of Mary. The Blessed Virgin Mary carries the spotless sacrificial lamb across the waters of death in sin to landfall - our salvation. And when He hung on the Cross, he gave up the ghost with a loud cry; and it was then “the veil of the temple was rent in two, from the top to the bottom.” His death was the beginning; it was then that the veil was rent with the birth of the newly commissioned Church, built on Peter commissioned to minister to salvation. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being a continuation of sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New, body, soul and Divinity contained within Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16 we see sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God.

Therefore we can only conclude that Mary is Ever Virgin and immaculate. Any less immaculate and Christ could not be considered a spotless, sinless, the Paschal Lamb. As in the time of Moses, when the Tabernacle was moved, the site became Holy remaining clean. As when Christ was born, so too was Mary. Mary being literally full of Grace, we hold that this Tabernacle could never be desecrated.

More important still, failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with sin means that the 'Perfect Sacrificial Lamb' resided in filth and thus having contact with sin couldn't be 'perfect' preventing every Jew of the day to this day from seeing Christ as God. To say dismiss Mary's virginity is to say that God came from the seed of man – and in order to be God would require 'creation'. How can the uncreated be created? To dismiss that Mary was Ever Virgin is to say that one can be in physical contact with Grace itself and can turn away – once again making God back into man.

JoeT

[paraclete]

Joe Stop trying to relate to God on an intellectual basis. Whether Mary is an eternal virgin or not has no bearing on our salvation. Mary only needed to be righteous under the law to be a vessel for the Holy Spirit to facilitiate the birth of Jesus. Your dissertation makes Jesues something other than man, and a man was needed for the sacrifice for sin

[arcura]

paraclete.
I think NOT.
I'm sure Joe is right on that.
Mary is very important to the birth of God the Son, Jesus Christ.
Without Mary giving birth there is no salvation.
But that does not change that fact that Jesus is both man and God. I'm surprised that you can seem to see that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

Mary is very important to the birth of God the Son, Jesus Christ. Without Mary giving birth there is no salvation.

He didn't say Mary didn't give birth to Jesus. Of course she did!

[paraclete]

paraclete.
I think NOT.
I'm sure Joe is right on that.
Mary is very important to the birth of God the Son, Jesus Christ.
Without Mary giving birth there is no salvation.
But that does not change that fact that Jesus is both man and God. I'm surprised that you can seem to see that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred we seem to be getting into a circular debate here, the question isn't whether Jesus is both God and man, but as to the fact that he needed to be man in order to make the Sacrifice to cover our sin. Obviously for Jesus to be man he needed to be born of woman, and not be created in a separate creation by God. So Mary's importance lies in the fact she is woman, not in that she contributed some super human quality which no other woman possessed.

[JoeT777]

Joe Stop trying to relate to God on an intellectual basis.

So, I should relate to God on a stupid basis?

Whether Mary is an eternal virgin or not has no bearing on our salvation.

If you don't believe in the trinity or if you believe that God is so common that he is flesh and blood by a woman, that is the seed of man, or if you don't believe the Nicene Creed, or if you don't believe in Divine prophecy and revelation is meaningless, or if you don't believe that Scripture is Divine Truth then I guess I can see how the Ever Virgin Mary is meaningless.

Mary only needed to be righteous under the law to be a vessel for the Holy Spirit to facilitate the birth of Jesus. Your dissertation makes Jesus something other than man, and a man was needed for the sacrifice for sin

Absolutely not, that was the point of writing. 'All you need is Love' is a song title not a Church with all those things necessary as a means of salvation.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Fred we seem to be getting into a circular debate here, the question isn't whether Jesus is both God and man, but as to the fact that he needed to be man in order to make the Sacrafice to cover our sin. Obviously for Jesus to be man he needed to be born of woman, and not be created in a seperate creation by God. so Mary's importance lies in the fact she is woman, not in that she contributed some super human quality which no other woman possessed.

Again, you’ve completely missed the point. I take for granted that you believe in the Trinity, that Christ is both God and man, and all those other things I’ve enumerated. The point of my ‘Mary’ post was that by denying her virginity, her blessedness, her holiness, you’ve denied the Truth in Scriptures themselves along with all those enumerated attributes of Christ; that is whether you recognize the error.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

The point of my ‘Mary’ post was that by denying her virginity, her blessedness, her holiness, you’ve denied the Truth in Scriptures themselves

As far as I could see, Paraclete did not deny her virginity, nor does Protestantism. It's mentioned in all three major creeds.

[JoeT777]

As far as I could see, Paraclete did not deny her virginity, nor does Protestantism. It's mentioned in all three major creeds.

I understood something else. Looking back, I could have been wrong. Maybe if he has time he can make it clear.

JoeT

[arcura]

paraclete,
Who is saying that Mary had a super human quality?
I know of none other than she gave a virgin birth to Jesus.
Is that a superhuman quality?
I GUESS that some might think so.
But the importance of Mary and who and what she was is often overlooked by some folks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

paraclete,
Who is saying that Mary had a super human quality?
I know of none other than she gave a virgin birth to Jesus.
Is that a superhuman quality?
I GUESS that some might think so.
But the importance of Mary and who and what she was is often overlooked by some folks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'm guessing 'Clete is questioning the Ever Virgin aspect.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
If so why.
I have no trouble with that. If fact I don't care if she was or not.
I know most Catholics think the ever virgin theology is important but I have not, so far, been convinced of that.
But to me Mary is my step-mother in heaven.
The mother of Jesus of whom I am a brother.
Thanks be to God and praise Him,
Fred

[JoeT777]

paraclete,
Who is saying that Mary had a super human quality?
I know of none other than she gave a virgin birth to Jesus.
Is that a superhuman quality?
I GUESS that some might think so.
But the importance of Mary and who and what she was is often overlooked by some folks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Excellent point.

[paraclete]

So, I should relate to God on a stupid basis?

Now you are being stupid. Relating to God is about Faith not about intellect but about the Spirit

If you don't believe in the trinity or if you believe that God is so common that he is flesh and blood by a woman, that is the seed of man, or if you don't believe the Nicene Creed, or if you don't believe in Divine prophecy and revelation is meaningless, or if you don't believe that Scripture is Divine Truth then I guess I can see how the Ever Virgin Mary is meaningless.

So when ever someone doesn't agree with you you spit the dummy and have a good old rave about any subject but the one we were discussing. How old are you joe, 10? Nowhere in Scripture does it say Mary was an eternal virgin, that is intellectual garbage and completely unnecessary for salvation

Absolutely not, that was the point of writing. 'All you need is Love' is a song title not a Church with all those things necessary as a means of salvation.

JoeT

All these things necessary for salvation? What things? Joe you have just demonstrated you don't know Scripture. Only one thing is necessary for salvation Joe. That is belief and profession of Jesus Christ nothing else is necessary. There is a difference between faith and fruit.

[arcura]

paraclete,
I think you are missing the point.
Without a virgin Mary there would be no Jesus Christ both God and man to later die for us.
Therefore no salvation.
God is the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE.
He does things His way for His reasons not ours because He loves us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred