Not Convinced.....

[simeonhuff]

Heresy! God did NOT create Jesus. Are you a Jehovah Witnesses? They believe God created Jesus first before all other creatures. Jesus is God…does the Incarnation ring a bell?

When I say “created”, I mean that God brought him to the Earth in human form. What I was trying to say was, there was not mother or wife involved, God is self-sustaining, and therefore Mary is Jesus’ heavenly mother.

And no, I am not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

[Miriam1947]

When I say “created”, I mean that God brought him to the Earth in human form. What I was trying to say was, there was not mother or wife involved, God is self-sustaining, and therefore Mary is Jesus’ heavenly mother.

And no, I am not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Jesus is God. You make it sound as if God is separate from Jesus. It’s the Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirt. One God in three persons.

When Jesus died on the Cross, God died for our sins. You cannot separate them.

It’s hard to wrap your mind around, I know. But do you understand that?

 

[ignatius777]

And to build on that point, notice how Jesus at first dismisses his mother. But she turns to the servants and tells them “Do whatever he tells you.” Jesus can now either roll up his sleeves and go to work as his mother asked, or he can prove he has no respect for her at all. Which does he choose?

EXCELLENT Bryan

 

[Linda_Marie]

When I say “created”, I mean that God brought him to the Earth in human form. What I was trying to say was, there was not mother or wife involved, God is self-sustaining, and therefore Mary is Jesus’ heavenly mother.

And no, I am not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

We have given you a great deal of scriptural backup for the Teachings of the Church. You have given us nothing but your opinion.

Mary: Mother of God

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).

If Mary is not His mother, then He is not descended from David and He does not fulfill the Messianic Prophecies. If Mary is not His mother, He cannot be the Christ.

 

[benidict]

Jesus is God. You make it sound as if God is separate from Jesus. It’s the Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirt. One God in three persons.

When Jesus died on the Cross, God died for our sins. You cannot separate them.

It’s hard to wrap your mind around, I know. But do you understand that?

and this my dear sister, is the crux of the matter. because if Mary, is not to be called the Mother of God, then Jesus is not God. there is no trinity, and we have gotten it wrong from the apostles till now. it ALL rest on who we say Mary is. i think you hit the nail on the head so to speak.
and to my protestant friends out there, it is more important than you realize just WHO Mary is. not all the protestants. i know there are plenty of Anglicans, Lutherans, and of course Orthodox, who would see more eye to eye with us on this. but if anything, you cannot deny that Mary is Mother of God, without denying Christ divinity, and the Trinity. we would have to deny the very flesh He took. so an error in judgment in this matter, can completely void the Gospel. just some food for thought. peace

 

[Being_Brave]

But…the NT of the bible was not canonised until the late 4th century, she existed nearly four hundred years without the bible. The church made the bible and the bible did not give birth to the church, and they did well.

I’m only on page 2 of the comments so I don’t know if anyone else asked this already…I could be reading it wrong, but I think the quote is saying that a Catholic belief is that the Church gave us the Bible, not that the Bible gave us the Church? Just want to make sure because my Priest made it very clear that without the Bible there would be no Church. The Word of God (Bible) did “give birth” to the church. The actual printed book came after the Church, but the information inside it existed in both oral tradition and written form before the Church, and it’s where we even learned how to have a church at all.

The reason this sticks out to me is that a Protestant friend of mine said that Catholics believe that the Bible isn’t as important as the Church hierarchy…that Catholics almost claim to have created and distributed the Bible. Catholics know that the two are inseparable but, there’s a misconception by Protestants that Catholics don’t view the Bible as important, and I think saying that the Bible came from the Church is harsh wording for a Protestant.

 

[benidict]

I’m only on page 2 of the comments so I don’t know if anyone else asked this already…I could be reading it wrong, but I think the quote is saying that a Catholic belief is that the Church gave us the Bible, not that the Bible gave us the Church? Just want to make sure because my Priest made it very clear that without the Bible there would be no Church. The Word of God (Bible) did “give birth” to the church. The actual printed book came after the Church, but the information inside it existed in both oral tradition and written form before the Church, and it’s where we even learned how to have a church at all.

The reason this sticks out to me is that a Protestant friend of mine said that Catholics believe that the Bible isn’t as important as the Church hierarchy…that Catholics almost claim to have created and distributed the Bible. Catholics know that the two are inseparable but, there’s a misconception by Protestants that Catholics don’t view the Bible as important, and I think saying that the Bible came from the Church is harsh wording for a Protestant.

hello my friend. until the council of nicea, there really was no bible as we know it today. it was here that the bishops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided which books were to be included in the cannon. i dont believe there had ever been a cannon of scripture before then. you had many more gospels than just the 4 floating around. the Church fathers had to decide which ones belonged and which didnt. we had the apostolic letters as well. so yes the Church gave us the bible. and you are correct, the oral and written teaching were there, just not formulated into a cohesive unit yet. both the apostolic tradition and the bible give us one deposite of faith. you cannot have one without the other. after all. where did peter get that he could discontinue cirumcision? where did we get sunday from? certainly not from the o.t. these were put into place by the authority of the office that Christ himself set up. hope this helps. Peace

 

[Being_Brave]

God created Jesus by himself, there was no mother or wife involved. Mary is NOT divine, she is human. She has NO special influence on Christ WHATSOEVER. She is not omniscient or omnipresent, so how can she hear millions of prayers at once? ABSOLUTLEY NO ONE is above sin, except God. She is only a vessel (or an instrument, if you like) that helped bring Christ into the world in human form. She has ABSOLUTLEY NO influence in our salvation whatsoever. Jesus is the ONLY meditator between man and God. Period.

I’m from a Southern Baptist (fundamentalist) background, and of all the things Marian doctrine was the most difficult for me to understand. I really read and prayed about it, and the more I learned and prayed I started to see the parts of scripture that were either unexplained or left out by my Baptist faith.

So, on Marian doctrine, here’s how I understand it:

There are some words that are easy to get hung up on, and mediation is one of them. (BTW, a few other words: trinity, rapture, divinity…are not even in the Bible, yet we know and accept the roles they play in worship.) Any time anyone plays “middle-man”, they’re a mediator. If I ask you to pray for me, and you do, you have put yourself in the position of mediator. I expect that you will pray to God for me…right? That’s what Mary and the Saints do. We do not expect that they have god-like power to grant wishes. Because they are “fully alive in Christ”, they are not dead, they are living in Heaven and pray to God on our behalf…just like those living here on Earth do for us. God wants us to pray for each other, and the Bible says that “the prayers of a righteous man availeth”, and those in Heaven are pretty righteous, since nothing unclean can enter Heaven. Our praying for each other does not detract from Jesus’ role as mediator, because all prayer goes through Him.

People in Heaven don’t live and age like we do here on Earth. Time does not matter, doesn’t restrict, and doesn’t limit once we’re there. If time doesn’t exist, isn’t that like being omnipresent? (Not speaking from anything I’ve been taught by the Church, just thinking…) …on the same note as God being omnipresent; if he knew Mary would consent to being a vessel, and that Jesus would die for the sins of those who came before and after him…why is it impossible to believe that he would make her “full of grace” from the beginning, knowing what he did? Mary was not above sin, she just got the “cash up front” so that Jesus could be born of a pure vessel. Does that make sense?

When Mary presented Jesus in the temple : Luke 2:34-35, "Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” That verse is telling Mary that she was destined to suffer as well, no? Any mother would hate to see her child treated that way, so why would it be important to point it out?..unless it was meant to emphasize the importance of their relationship. Her suffering was part of His, and that’s a belief that can be read literally, sola scriptura.

Just like there are fanatics in the Protestant denominations (WBC, for example), there are fanatics in Catholicism. Some take it too far, and literally worship Mary like a diety. She is not. Catholicism does not teach that, and does not condone it. We do respect her, though, because Jesus named her Mother, and made a point to see to it that she was labeled as such when he was suffering on the cross.

 

[Genesius]

I’m sure it’s not intentional, but I have noticed a lot of opinions in this thread on both sides, with not much documentation to support it, including my own posts. If we are to assert something Catholic we should at least support it with the CCC, and not just Scripture. Just MHO.

Also, I noticed someone accused someone else of being a “Jehovah’s Witness”. I’m really glad I’m not one or I would be extremely offended. These forums are not supposed to be a place for holy wars. We should strive to always be charitable in our responses, seeking to treat others with dignity and respect even if we disagree. If we want to discredit theological ideas that’s one thing, but let’s not allow it to get personal please. I may not have the authority to say these things, but I guess I am just humbly asking. Thank you.

 

[Miriam1947]

Also, I noticed someone accused someone else of being a “Jehovah’s Witness”. I’m really glad I’m not one or I would be extremely offended. These forums are not supposed to be a place for holy wars. We should strive to always be charitable in our responses, seeking to treat others with dignity and respect even if we disagree. If we want to discredit theological ideas that’s one thing, but let’s not allow it to get personal please. I may not have the authority to say these things, but I guess I am just humbly asking. Thank you.

Asking if someone is a Jehovah’s Witness is not an accusation. That was based on how Simeon had expressed himself in what he believes. There was no accusatory tone involved that I saw.

 

[Miriam1947]

I’m sure it’s not intentional, but I have noticed a lot of opinions in this thread on both sides, with not much documentation to support it, including my own posts. If we are to assert something Catholic we should at least support it with the CCC, and not just Scripture. Just MHO.

We could support our opinions with the CCC but if the person asking the question is not Catholic then using the CCC is not necessarily useful.

It’s the same as when Mormons use the D & C, B of M, or Pearl of Great Price to make their arguments. Since none of those sources have any meaning for me, I cannot accept the arguments that Mormons make from them.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Genesius]

We could support our opinions with the CCC but if the person asking the question is not Catholic then using the CCC is not necessarily useful.

It’s the same as when Mormons use the D & C, B of M, or Pearl of Great Price to make their arguments. Since none of those sources have any meaning for me, I cannot accept the arguments that Mormons make from them.

Do you see what I mean?

I guess what I was driving at, is that anyone can claim to be Catholic and assert that they are representing Catholic teaching, when someone else challenges their beliefs (i.e. you guys “worship Mary”, etc.). I can simply say, “No, we don’t worship Mary.” or I can back it up with actual teaching from the CCC, as well as Scripture. I have heard nationwide Protestant apologists do that very thing; make unfounded claims as to what we Catholics teach and believe.

Also, the first thing I read in the one post was, “HERESY!”. Maybe a more charitable response would have been to ask if the poster really meant “created” rather than to assume they were a heretic. No need for name calling (Jehovah’s Witness) to even enter the picture. Yes, to say Jesus was created is heresy if one really means it, but as it turns out they didn’t mean it. I’m just saying there are more charitable ways of responding.

 

[Genesius]

I guess what I was driving at, is that anyone can claim to be Catholic and assert that they are representing Catholic teaching, when someone else challenges their beliefs (i.e. you guys “worship Mary”, etc.). I can simply say, “No, we don’t worship Mary.” or I can back it up with actual teaching from the CCC, as well as Scripture. I have heard nationwide Protestant apologists do that very thing; make unfounded claims as to what we Catholics teach and believe.

Also, the first thing I read in the one post was, “HERESY!”. Maybe a more charitable response would have been to ask if the poster really meant “created” rather than to assume they were a heretic. No need for name calling (Jehovah’s Witness) to even enter the picture. Yes, to say Jesus was created is heresy if one really means it, but as it turns out they didn’t mean it. I’m just saying there are more charitable ways of responding.

 

[benidict]

I guess what I was driving at, is that anyone can claim to be Catholic and assert that they are representing Catholic teaching, when someone else challenges their beliefs (i.e. you guys “worship Mary”, etc.). I can simply say, “No, we don’t worship Mary.” or I can back it up with actual teaching from the CCC, as well as Scripture. I have heard nationwide Protestant apologists do that very thing; make unfounded claims as to what we Catholics teach and believe.

Also, the first thing I read in the one post was, “HERESY!”. Maybe a more charitable response would have been to ask if the poster really meant “created” rather than to assume they were a heretic. No need for name calling (Jehovah’s Witness) to even enter the picture. Yes, to say Jesus was created is heresy if one really means it, but as it turns out they didn’t mean it. I’m just saying there are more charitable ways of responding.

not really a bad idea at all Genesius. i for one will try this out. have my ccc right here. and my daily roman missal. this may also help. also i think the poster who said that Jesus was created, is relatively young, and i also read it to be a slip on his part. hes actually very bright for someone of his age. from what i gather from some of his other post, hes still in school. pretty amazing in this day and age to have someone that young, asking such deep questions. Peace

 

[Nicea325]

When I say “created”, I mean that God brought him to the Earth in human form. What I was trying to say was, there was not mother or wife involved, God is self-sustaining, and therefore Mary is Jesus’ heavenly mother.

And no, I am not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

There is still issues with your argument. If Jesus is God and man 100%,hence Mary (human mother) obviously gave birth to God,not simply Jesus human nature. Another heresy my friend.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Genesius
Also, I noticed someone accused someone else of being a “Jehovah’s Witness”. I’m really glad I’m not one or I would be extremely offended. These forums are not supposed to be a place for holy wars. We should strive to always be charitable in our responses, seeking to treat others with dignity and respect even if we disagree. If we want to discredit theological ideas that’s one thing, but let’s not allow it to get personal please. I may not have the authority to say these things, but I guess I am just humbly asking. Thank you.

I am the one who asked Simeon if he was a JW? Why is that offensive? How is one supposed know one’s religious beliefs,if it is offensive to ask?

 

[Apryl]

I’m only on page 2 of the comments so I don’t know if anyone else asked this already…I could be reading it wrong, but I think the quote is saying that a Catholic belief is that the Church gave us the Bible, not that the Bible gave us the Church? Just want to make sure because my Priest made it very clear that without the Bible there would be no Church. The Word of God (Bible) did “give birth” to the church. The actual printed book came after the Church, but the information inside it existed in both oral tradition and written form before the Church, and it’s where we even learned how to have a church at all.

The reason this sticks out to me is that a Protestant friend of mine said that Catholics believe that the Bible isn’t as important as the Church hierarchy…that Catholics almost claim to have created and distributed the Bible. Catholics know that the two are inseparable but, there’s a misconception by Protestants that Catholics don’t view the Bible as important, and I think saying that the Bible came from the Church is harsh wording for a Protestant.

Yeah… you may wanna take a few minutes and read the comments.

As for which came first: we had more than 300 years of Church before the New Testament of the Bible came into existence, and the Church protected the Bible to it’s current existence.

The hierarchy of the church isn’t what’s important, but the Apostolic Succession. We’ve had a Pope since Simon Peter was the First Pope, and we’ve had that as the tradition since the Pentecost. The Apostolic Succession is how we have Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium interprets scripture for us, and when it’s fuzzy (which isn’t often) the Pope decides what is meant.

The Bible is the Bible is the Bible.

 

[Genesius]

not really a bad idea at all Genesius. i for one will try this out. have my ccc right here. and my daily roman missal. this may also help. also i think the poster who said that Jesus was created, is relatively young, and i also read it to be a slip on his part. hes actually very bright for someone of his age. from what i gather from some of his other post, hes still in school. pretty amazing in this day and age to have someone that young, asking such deep questions. Peace

Oh, absolutely. Very bright young person.

 

[Genesius]

I am the one who asked Simeon if he was a JW? Why is that offensive? How is one supposed know one’s religious beliefs,if it is offensive to ask?

I stand corrected, Nicea325. I didn’t think it was offensive to ask one’s religious beliefs. It was just the manner in which it was asked, with the first word seeming to set the mood; “HERESY!” Are you a Jehovah’s Witness or something?" is how it sounded, like more of a personal attack, than a correction of the statement itself. However, upon further reflection, and your (name removed by moderator)ut I can see now that it wasn’t intended that way at all.

 

[Being_Brave]

Yeah… you may wanna take a few minutes and read the comments.

As for which came first: we had more than 300 years of Church before the New Testament of the Bible came into existence, and the Church protected the Bible to it’s current existence.

The hierarchy of the church isn’t what’s important, but the Apostolic Succession. We’ve had a Pope since Simon Peter was the First Pope, and we’ve had that as the tradition since the Pentecost. The Apostolic Succession is how we have Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium interprets scripture for us, and when it’s fuzzy (which isn’t often) the Pope decides what is meant.

The Bible is the Bible is the Bible.

Yeah, I wasn’t trying to start a chicken and egg issue, it’s just that my Priest specifically taught us that we would not have the Church without the Bible to tell us how to run it. Granted, the Bible the original Church leaders had was the living Christ, tradition, plus written word…but without the teaching there would be no Church. Since that information came from a Priest, I’m still uncomfortable saying that the Church came up with the Bible…it may be the protestant in me, but I know that if it’s bothering me when it’s worded like that it has to be a problem for practicing protestants.