no my friend. what YOU are saying is blasphemous. you are denying the trinity. YOU are denying the deity of Christ. YOU are guilty of accepting a very old heresy. so you may want to read YOUR bible more carefully, before you start throwing accusations which are biblically, and traditionally baseless. P.S. round 5:tanning:
I was asking God how to reply you and He gave me this verse:
i would suggest you read John 1 mosacked. its a good place to start, when studying the deity of Christ. and yes, we are still praying for you.
…i would suggest you read John 1 mosacked. its a good place to start, when studying the deity of Christ. and yes, we are still praying for you.
by the way. i have never asked the moderator to ban you. ive never even turned in anyones post. i really enjoy this. fundamentalist like you make my day. if not, then i would simply ignore you.
i see. speecheless already.
ah well. whenever your ready. lets hear your latest mean spirited remarks. 
God tells me this:i see. speecheless already.
please continue to throw your venomous words my way. i prefer it to my Catholic brothers/sisters being attacked. you dont hurt my feelings one bit. i actually find you an interesting individual. i can take anything you can dish out, and then some. ive dealt with worse.
and i would love to hear you speak words of wisdom. but that will only happen when you open your heart to the love of Christ. i really dont know who you are listening to. but if i were you, i would really search my heart, and test what im being told. my prayers for you. 
Oh…in case you are wondering, I was the one that reported you.
It may be reason enough to believe it, and as I said, I’m more inclined to believe it than not, but it seems unnecessary to declare it as doctrine.It reinforces it because Christ’s flesh is the flesh of Mary. IOW, the Incarnation was pure and Christ was pure–the pure sacrifice, the pure high priest. Satan could never throw Jesus’ mother in his face, could he? Not when she was conceived without the stain of original sin. You just know that if Satan could have he would have made an issue of it. And even today many people claim that Jesus’ being just as human as the rest of us means that he wasn’t fully divine. Indeed, the pronouncement of Mary, Mother of God was to combat this very ancient heresy. **Her absolute purity ensures Christ’s absolute purity, as well. The IC is a very ancient concept that not all theologians accepted/argued for, but theologians are speculators not makers of doctrine. When else would God have granted her this grace than at her conception? Note that the Angel Gabriel called Mary “full of grace” as a title, instead of her given name. Surely it was, therefore, something she had had since conception. ** That’s reasonable enough.
Yes, reasonable it not enough reason to believe in and of itself.
Not to over use the word, but the reason it is a doctrine/dogma is because it is a universal truth. That which is true ought to be believed because it leads us to believe all that is true. For example, it deepens our belief in the divinity of Christ. Witness the discussion here in this very thread on the personhood of Christ. The IC reinforces the belief that Christ was fully God and fully man. If it does that, it’s a universal truth that deserves to be a doctrine/dogma.As to burden of proof, I would submit to you, in all humility, that the Church founded by Christ himself does not have to prove to denominations founded in the 19th century that it has the authority to declare doctrines dogma. I was once in the Assemblies of God and deeply appreciate all I learned and experienced there. I once thought the Catholic Church rather high-handed for declaring some things definitely true. But, after I learned a bit more history and looked into Catholic teaching for myself I discovered I was wrong. It was a hard process of self-discovery as well as doctrinal discovery. Anyway, I came to trust the Church because it was founded by Christ. All matters of faith and morals boil down to authority, what it is and who has it.
I agree that if it is true that:As to burden of proof, I would submit to you, in all humility, that the Church founded by Christ himself does not have to prove to denominations founded in the 19th century that it has the authority to declare doctrines dogma. I was once in the Assemblies of God and deeply appreciate all I learned and experienced there. I once thought the Catholic Church rather high-handed for declaring some things definitely true. But, after I learned a bit more history and looked into Catholic teaching for myself I discovered I was wrong. It was a hard process of self-discovery as well as doctrinal discovery. Anyway, I came to trust the Church because it was founded by Christ. All matters of faith and morals boil down to authority, what it is and who has it.
I’m following the Church that gave you your Bible, kind of like being able to talk to the founding fathers who gave us our Constitution. I’ve neither added nor taken anything away from the Bible.
Do you believe Jesus was God? Was Mary his mother? As I have already told you, you cannot seperate the two natures of Jesus (human and divine) from his PERSON. Mary gave birth to a PERSON, Jesus Christ, who is God, therefore she is the mother of God. As I have also already told you, this title was given to Mary to refute the very heresy that you are promoting. It was meant to define the Person of Christ. She did not give birth to a nature (human) but a Person (human and divine). Also, Mary did have something to do with it. She said YES. She could have refused.
Yes. The Church has never said otherwise.
Well, one thing is for sure, I do have a father, since you were wondering. I also had a mother and it is she that gave birth to me. Since I have heard the talk on the birds and the bees I think I get it. You seem to be ignoring the fact that while Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit his mother was human. Even you admit that original sin is passed on by human parents to ther children. If his human mother had original sin then it follows that it would have been passed on to him, regardless of who his Father was.
Yes, you already said that. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Jesus had a human mother. Did you only inherit charactaristics from your father? If you pour fresh milk into a carton of spoiled milk what do you get? Spoiled milk. In order for Jesus to be pure, both of his parents had to be pure.
Actually, you can only trust the Bible because the Catholic Church compiled it and through its members wrote the NT. We have to understand that the Church existed before the NT. Indeed, the NT is the witness to the authority of the Church, but not the proof of it’s authority. The Church’s authority came/comes from Christ not the NT. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles to decide matters of faith and morals not to any writings. Now that is biblically true. The idea that the Bible is the final authority is not biblically true. Indeed, the writings of the NT are only an off-shoot of the ministry of the Apostles and other early Christians, such as Mark and Luke, who were subject to Peter and Paul, who were Apostles. So, the whole question of authority rests on these facts.
So much I could respond to…so little time and energy…so I will be very selective…Actually, you can only trust the Bible because the Catholic Church compiled it and through its members wrote the NT. We have to understand that the Church existed before the NT. Indeed, the NT is the witness to the authority of the Church, but not the proof of it’s authority. The Church’s authority came/comes from Christ not the NT. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles to decide matters of faith and morals not to any writings. Now that is biblically true. The idea that the Bible is the final authority is not biblically true. Indeed, the writings of the NT are only an off-shoot of the ministry of the Apostles and other early Christians, such as Mark and Luke, who were subject to Peter and Paul, who were Apostles. So, the whole question of authority rests on these facts.
This of course assumes that the organization that calls itself Catholic is the sole legitimate heir of the apostolic church that calls itself Catholic. That is a topic of itself.
Of course this begs the question the question on how do I know what authority Jesus Christ has given this church as opposed to how much is unfounded claims?
Now this sort of begs the whole issue of “the clarity of Scripture” issue and how much the passages that you claim support your position a person of good will can disagree with you and still make sense.
And this sort of begs the question of clarity of history issue. There is one guy here (I think his name is Edwin) that seems very well versed in history but might (since he is not Catholic) have a different opinion on.
Actually I was very careful with the words I chose because I know that I have neither time nor energy for the issue of authority/role of the Bible and authority/role of church (much less whether “church” must exist in only one organization.
History and the Bible say so, not I. However, the Church does not claim that it is the sole possessor of the truth and never did. That is an assumption non-Catholics make who don’t know better–not meaning that in a pejorative sense.
The Church’s infallibility has nothing to do with the fallibility of its members. It’s infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit.
Funny that you trust the Bible, then. If it is the word of God then it must be trusted, if not, no. Of course, the Bible doesn’t speak for itself it needs an infallible interpreter, which is what the Church is. Why? Because it was given that authority by Christ.
No. It’s organization ‘A’ writing and compiling its own witness and words which is entity ‘B’.
It does because entity ‘A’ are persons and entity ‘B’ is an object. Authority does not lie in objects but in people. It’s why, although the USA has a constitution, it also has a supreme court which interprets it.
We have enough time and energy when the questions are so very important, yes?
Deduce when the Church can speak with authority on matters of faith and morals and when it can’t and you’ll have answered your question.
Because Christ founded his Church, not churches, and prayed that we all be one. Whatever Christ wants, Christ gets.
But we do see the gifts in the Catholic Church. You simply haven’t been reading the right periodicals.
As I stated before, the Bible is not a prooftext, but a witness. Witnesses don’t prove anything, they only testify to what they observe/know. The NT is not the sum of what we know about the early Church and its organization. We have the Church Fathers for that. You should read them.
Edwin is very knowledgeable, but he’s not the Holy Spirit nor did Christ give him any authority to speak for him (or me or you, either for that matter).
I will not doubt your own words as to your motive. I don’t know what’s in your heart and mind. That’s strictly between you and God.
And where does scripture teach everything must be taught explicitly? Did Jesus explicitly define the Trinity?
No exceptions? No offense,but that comment alone makes you the sole judge of the truth. It WAS not possible for God to prevent Mary from being stained by original sin? Why cannot God spare one person?