Hi
I tried to explain this to you already Oudave.Attention there was a thread pulled last night in which a Traditional Catholic was bearing false witnessand slanderous false accusations,coupled with Oudaves misunderstanding of the catechism has caused him even more confusion.God Bless
Hi
Stop making things up…your going down in flames. Read my post 394 below…
The Catholic Church has never denied that Jesus is not the only way to heaven!Let me ask you a question Oudave who will judge the Muslims?
I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CATECHISM PARAGRAPH! I’m talking about your ridiculous exegesis (interpretation) of that paragraph.
Dave, could I ask a question? Do you have a difficult time staying on one subject? This Forum is divided into “threads” each thread deals with a subject, the subject of this particular thread is “Mary- other children” please explain to us all what in the world your misquote from the CCC has to do with Mary or if she had other children.
I’m asking because I believe this encounter was very methodic and purposeful. First, the angel did not tell Mary the way she would conceive so that Mary would have to ask. Wouldn’t it have been so much clearer for the angel to explain that the child would be conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit to begin with? This is certainly a VERY large piece of the puzzle, I’m sure it didn’t just slip his mind! The angel withheld this information so that Mary would have to ask, therefore revealing her vow of virginity. It wasn’t just chance. Read the whole encounter with an open heart. i’m really interested in why you would feel the angel means immediately.
TO ALL CATHOLICS ON THIS THREAD: Settle down. Do you believe that you will change anybody’s mind by beating him over the head with Scripture, Tradition, or Historical fact? NO! You only do so through love. Dave is not going to change his mind, because everything is connected to him. He cannot think of the Catholic and Scriptural claim of Mary not having “other children” without connecting it to every other Catholic doctrine he disagrees with. It is built in to his faith. Until he comes with an open heart and mind, there can be very little fruitful discussion. He wants to prove you wrong. It doesn’t matter whether you give him all of the logical arguments in the world. Thus, we need to back off here guys. This thread has more than answered the objections raised. Why keep going over and over the same objections when he has not paid attention to them? You guys need to trust in God’s grace. We do not convert people. Grace is the only thing that can change a man’s heart. Pounding the same message over and over again, is not trusting in God’s grace or respecting a man’s human dignity. Furthermore, all we have to do is plant a seed. Dave has seen the arguments. Whether he has really considered them or not is not our responsibility. The thread speaks for itself. We need to move on. The emotions are way to negative, and peoples’ attitudes are not coming off as charitable. God bless.
Using your logic, Mary didnt say I will not know a man. She said I have not known a man.
I agree. Dave is not going hear anything that is stated here. And it’s not all his fault because this is how he was taught. Same goes for xavier. It’s time to move on! Everyone did a fine job expressing the Divine Truths of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Mary was the earthly vessel god used to birth the Messiah. Mary was not the mother of God that is blaspheous. In the beginning was the Word. Jesus was in the begining with God, Mary was not.Mary is the mother of God. I don’t envision God being irrate and condemning an individual because s/he honors His mother.
Xavier, since I have not seen this point argued, I will address it. Do you believe in the Incarnation? Is so, you must believe that Christ was both FULLY human and FULLY divine. While it is true that this gives him two different natures, people do not give birth to natures. People give birth to people. Christ is God. Mary gave birth to Him. That makes Mary the Mother of God. It isn’t that difficult to surmise, and it certainly isn’t blasphemous. Sorry that you have a problem with it, but it certainly ain’t a Biblical problem.
Mary is the greatest woman in the Bible. Her faith surpasses that of any of the other women in the Bible. That said I will repeat. Anything you place above or before God is an idol. When you pray to Mary ( or as you say ask Mary to pray for you) rather than God
Your quite right it is not a biblical problem.
No, first she didn’t say “I have not known” in past tense, in fact in my NAB it says " How can this be, since I have no relations with man" as in present, she was probably shocked that such a thing could happen considering her vow of virginity. The angel clearly is speaking of the future, I still think it was very intentional, the angel did not tell Mary the way she would conceive so that Mary would have to ask. Wouldn’t it have been so much clearer for the angel to explain that the child would be conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit to begin with? The angel withheld this information so that Mary would have to ask, therefore revealing her vow of virginity. It wasn’t just chance. I was just curious why you feel she would think it was immediate. If there is no reason I understand.
Luke 1:43And whence is this to me that the mother of my lord should come to me?
Xavier, this claim is not Biblical in itself. This is your opinion. Your opinion is false. It is grave heresy in the Catholic Church to elevate Mary to the status of God. I know this has been repeated to you many times on this thread. You choose to ignore it. As for your last claim, this too, has been refuted. This logic proves way too much. If this were so, you could never ask anyone else to pray for you. Scripture clearly teaches that we should pray for each other, thus that is an unfounded claim. The real question for you SHOULD be, how can we ask for the prayers of the dead. Yet, you have not reasoned that far yet. You are still stuck on your same original objections that have been more than competently answered.
