BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

I believe she died and was taken to heaven, body and soul. I don't think Pius XII said she was buried, though some of his sources did.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn: "some of us are convinced that intercessory prayer is efficacious and further, seeking intercession from Mary, the saints, or anyone else within the communion of saints is to be commended"

Can you elaborate, please? I have done reading on the RCC practices and doctrines, but never understood the reasoning here.

For example, why should Mary or any of the Saints, who do not know me beyond me reaching out to them consider my plea worthy of their extra efforts?

And why should God consider a prayer from a saint if He would not hear it from the original petitioner? I am reminded of Saul after he fell from God's approval, begging Samuel to intercede for him, and Samuel plainly telling Saul it would do him no good.

I meant what I said about considering other opinions, but this one has always struck me as tokenism, like the belief that a piece of bone from a saint having power of some kind.

Thanks for your answer.

---

The key is your take on intercessory prayer: efficacious, or not? You might do some study of the term "communion of saints". In the Anglican tradition, this is composed of all believers who have ever been or who are here in time with us now. Simple version is there is only the eternal now with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit along with all believers. Therefore, to invoke Mary, those recognized by some form of the Church universal as saints, or any other believer wherever they may be whether in time or outside of it is all the same. I can ask my late father, or Mary, or you to pray for me. The effect is identical.

FWIW, not Roman Catholic for several reasons. As to the Assumption or Immaculate Conception I remain agnostic and indifferent.

It is impossible for the matter and energy that makes up all things, to exist in the first place because their very existence violates the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. In other words, it is impossible for the matter and energy to come from nothing. So then how did the matter and energy get here? It had to have come from a God that exists outside of scientific law and created them. The Bible says that in the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Also, Jesus Christ proves that the true God IS the God of the Bible because Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in this first coming that were written hundreds of years before His birth. He performed miracles in front of thousands of people. He healed the sick, made the lame to walk, blind to see, ect. He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again. The explosion of Christianity is based on that fact and it changed the world. New years, Easter, Christmas are ALL based on Christ Jesus. I have been studying this stuff for years and the more I research the more I know it's true.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

I believe she died and was taken to heaven, body and soul. I don't think Pius XII said she was buried, though some of his sources did.

---

It's not necessarily unbiblical to hold that belief. But what do you base it on? And how do you reconcile that with the dogma of Mary being sinless?

curtpenn: "The key is your take on intercessory prayer: efficacious, or not? "

That's a complex question. I treat it much as I would if someone in real life came up to me and asked for consideration for someone. If someone whose opinion matters to me asks for help for someone else, I would consider giving that help for the person. But if I learned that someone asked someone else to intervene for them, but did not approach me themselves, I might well see the matter differently.

I believe God wants each of us to approach Him about our problems and our needs. If I, on my own concern, ask God to help someone, I believe He will hear and respond, but if I ask Mary, Peter, or whomever to speak up for me, I do not see that as how God wants us to grow in faith or trust in Him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

I believe she died and was taken to heaven, body and soul. I don't think Pius XII said she was buried, though some of his sources did.

---

It's not necessarily unbiblical to hold that belief. But what do you base it on? And how do you reconcile that with the dogma of Mary being sinless?

---

It's based on the magisterium. I'm not sure about your other question, but I'll do a little research on it.

EVERYONE: Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

Please read posts from all the members in this thread. It's good for expanding horizons.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Please read posts from all the members in this thread. It's good for expanding horizons.

---

Please actually believe the Scriptures rather than ignoring the ones that don't fit your false Doctrine and don't get your Doctrine from past Popes or Church Leaders, get your Doctrine from the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures Trump all Popes, all Churches and all Church Leaders.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Please read posts from all the members in this thread. It's good for expanding horizons.

---

Please actually believe the Scriptures rather than ignoring the ones that don't fit your false Doctrine and don't get your Doctrine from past Popes or Church Leaders, get your Doctrine from the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures Trump all Popes, all Churches and all Church Leaders.

---

Good point. Please read posts which refer to more Scripture than just Paul.

The total Bible trumps Paul, and those who apply his writing creatively outside Jesus' examples and teachings.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Please read posts from all the members in this thread. It's good for expanding horizons.

---

Please actually believe the Scriptures rather than ignoring the ones that don't fit your false Doctrine and don't get your Doctrine from past Popes or Church Leaders, get your Doctrine from the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures Trump all Popes, all Churches and all Church Leaders.

---

Good point. Please read posts which refer to more Scripture than just Paul.

The total Bible trumps Paul, and those who apply his writing creatively outside Jesus' examples and teachings.

---

All Scripture is the word of God including Paul . You can't just ignore Paul as you would like to.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(KJV)

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. {in old time: or, at any time}
(KJV)

Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. {pure: Heb. purified}

Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
(KJV)

READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE AND WHY CATHOLIC THEOLOGY IS BAD THEOLOGY:

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/2gospels.html?fbclid=IwAR1cfWBP0yg1s9CTe3fQlUmHR8GbSkqdK5G456e1xX4PSrmqM54KVnzZuow

Frodo: "All Scripture is the word of God including Paul . You can't just ignore Paul as you would like to."

But I don't 'ignore Paul'. You know very well I have quoted him.

But you have ignored Christ when He contradicts Paul. That is unwise.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: "All Scripture is the word of God including Paul . You can't just ignore Paul as you would like to."

But I don't 'ignore Paul'. You know very well I have quoted him.

But you have ignored Christ when He contradicts Paul. That is unwise.

---

Christ contradicts Paul because Christ was Ministering to JEWS who were under the LAW at that time. He was Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to them.

LATER, JESUS CHRIST called Paul into his Ministry and gave Paul his Doctrine for the GENTILES, which also included the exceptional Jew who would also believe the Gospel of Grace.

Jesus gave Paul his Doctrine, so to say that you don't believe Paul when he contradicts Jesus Message to ISRAEL you don't know how to separate Scripture is your issue.

READ THIS IF YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS:

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/2gospels.html?fbclid=IwAR1cfWBP0yg1s9CTe3fQlUmHR8GbSkqdK5G456e1xX4PSrmqM54KVnzZuow

Frodo: "Christ contradicts Paul"

Stop right there.

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you think it does, your interpretation is faulty.

This is why you should always seek more than one source.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: "Christ contradicts Paul"

Stop right there.

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you think it does, your interpretation is faulty.

This is why you should always seek more than one source.

---

Huh????

YOU said Christ contradicts Paul. You just said that one comment ago.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: "Christ contradicts Paul"

Stop right there.

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you think it does, your interpretation is faulty.

This is why you should always seek more than one source.

---

Huh????

YOU said Christ contradicts Paul. You just said that one comment ago.

---

Yes, I mis-spoke and expected Frodo to confirm Scripture does not contradict itself, at which time we could discuss his interpretation of Scripture, which is the problem. Instead, he concurred.

I notice you have no concern about Frodo's statement or position.

Paul was a great servant of the Lord, but putting him above Christ, as Frodo does and you seem to agree with, leads to error in doctrine.

Pity you don't show such attention when Coke Bear or Sam explain their understanding of Scripture. While I disagree with the RC doctrines in many places, discussion is much better than dismissal or the bitter character seen in some posts of this thread.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"She is the holiest human to ever walk the earth"

"Bottom line is that Luke tells us that Mary was, is, and always will be sinless"
I am very uncomfortable with both of these statements. They remind me of the Marian cult which claims Mary will intercede with Christ on our behalf, essentially making her a mini-Christ. And neither statement is actually supported by Scripture.

---

I can't speak for a Marian cult. I never heard of that. Mary's intercession does not make her a 'mini-Christ'. All prayers are brought before Jesus. She is simply bringing our prayers to Jesus. They are answered BY Jesus if it be God's will. She is simply bringing our prayers to Jesus.

Oldbear83 said:

---

To the first claim, are you truly saying that Mary was holier than, say, Enoch (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5), or Abraham, whose faith so pleased God that the very Covenant which saves Mankind was created out of God's love for Abraham? Are you saying that Christ was untruthful when He said "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist" (Matthew 11:11)?

---

A text without context is a pretext. Please read the first 10 versus of Matthew 11. Let's look closely at verses 7-10 to see what Jesus is discussing:

As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces. 9 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written:
"'I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.'

He is clearly talking about John being the greatest of the prophets. This statement does not contract my assertion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

My point is not to glorify those individuals, but to caution us against focusing on humans when we should focus on God? We do not pray to Enoch, Abraham or John the Baptist, so I disagree with the 'Hail Mary', which directs prayers not to our Lord but through a human woman.

---

Does the Bible forbid us from asking for intercessory prayer? No. It encourages us to pray for one another.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And regarding Mary, there is scripture where she was in clear error, albeit a small one. In Matthew 12:46-50 (also Mark 3:31-35), we read that Mary and some of Jesus' brothers wants to interrupt Him for something, and Jesus said "Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers." (Matthew 12:49, Mark 3:34).

---

This is a very popular Protestant argument and quite frankly on the surface seems like a strong point. Let's look at Matthew's whole point of his Gospel. Matthew is preaching that the kingdom of God is now at hand. Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise to the House of David that had previously been built by blood and marriage (yet runs off the tracks). His new Kingdom of God won't be like the first house. It will have a membership of ALL believers. In this passage Jesus is saying that ALL are invited into Jesus' family. Jesus is using this as teaching point.

How is Mary is error if the Bible clearly states, 47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

It wasn't Mary or the others that interrupted him, it was someone else.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

As stated earlier, baptism obtains the forgiveness of all sin, including original sin and personal sin.

Many of the earliest church fathers agree:

Shepard of Hermas - 140 AD:
" 'I have heard, sir,' said I, 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'"

---

While I wait for a response to my previous post, I'll go ahead and start on my next point, regarding the above. Let's look at this by examining scripture. Look at Luke 18:9-14, where Jesus is telling the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

"..."Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other."


To be justified, means that one's sins are forgiven and one is considered righteous in God's eyes. How did this tax collector become justified? Wasn't it the truly repentant state of his heart? There was no water baptism, yet Jesus clearly says his repentance was acceptable to God and that he obtained a remission of sins. So how do we reconcile this with what the Shepard of Hermas said, that there is "no other repentance" except through water baptism, and that water baptism is when we obtain the remission of sins?

---

Sorry for the delay.

The Tax Collected was justified like everyone else was justified before Christ instituted the sacrament of Baptism. Just like Abraham was 'justified' before Jesus was born.

Thanks for your post, Coke Bear. But I am still concerned by one part of it:

"Mary's intercession does not make her a 'mini-Christ'. All prayers are brought before Jesus. She is simply bringing our prayers to Jesus."

Why is it necessary for Mary to bring someone's prayer to Jesus? And doesn't that make her an intercessor, when that role is reserved for Christ, who pleads for us to the Father?

I mentioned before that I agree with intercession, when I am aware of someone's need and pray to God through Christ on my own decision, but don't see it the same way if someone else asks me to intercede for them.


Again, thanks for your thoughts on this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Catholics believe Mary is sinless, was assumed into heaven bodily like Jesus, pray to her, kiss her statue, and some believe she is a Co-Redeemer.....you don't think that is idolatry?

---

Have you ever kissed a picture of your wife, kids, parents or grandparents? Does that mean that you worship them? No, of course not. It means you love them. You show their likeness an affection. It is reminding you of them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even regarding her as the "holiest human to ever walk the earth" has absolutely no biblical basis, and is dangerously close to idolatry. And more importantly, as OldBear pointed out, it directly contradicts Jesus when he said "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John (the Baptist)."

---

As I responded to OldBear83, please carefully without bias read the first 10 verses of Matthew 11. Jesus is clearly referring to John as the greatest among the prophets.

Plus look at all the holy people that in scripture Moses, Abraham, Peter, & Paul.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here is a prayer from Pope Pius XII:
"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty,

and impelled by the anxieties of the world,
we cast ourselves into your arms,
O Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary,
confident of finding in your most loving heart
appeasement of our ardent desires,
and a safe harbour from the tempests
which beset us on every side.
Though degraded by our faults
and overwhelmed by infinite misery,
we admire and praise the peerless richness
of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you,
above every other mere creature,
from the first moment of your conception
until the day on which,
after your assumption into heaven,
he crowned you Queen of the Universe.
O crystal Fountain of Faith,
bathe our minds with the eternal truths!
O fragrant Lily of All Holiness,
captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume!
O Conqueress of Evil and Death,
inspire in us a deep horror of sin,
which makes the soul detestable to God
and a slave of hell! O well-beloved of God,
hear the ardent cry
which rises up from every heart.
Bend tenderly over our aching wounds.
Convert the wicked,
dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed,
comfort the poor and humble,
quench hatreds, sweeten hardness,
safeguard the flower of purity in youth,
protect the holy church,
make all men feel the attractions of Christian goodness.
In your name,
resounding harmoniously in heaven,
may they recognize that they are brothers,
and that the nations are members of one family,
upon which may there shine forth the sun
of a universal and sincere peace.
Receive, O most sweet Mother,
our humble supplications,
and above all obtain for us that,
one day, happy with you,
we may repeat before your throne that hymn
which today is sung on earth around your altars:
You are all-beautiful, O Mary!
You are the glory,
your are the joy,
your are the honor of our people!
Amen. "
These words are praise and worship that should be given to JESUS and GOD ONLY. Can you honestly read these words and not see idolatry??

---

Idolatry is denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God.

Please show me in the prayer where it equates Mary to God or Jesus and states that we should worship her as a God. It doesn't. It does offer praise "express warm approval or admiration of" and honor "high respect; great esteem"

This prayer is like a poem. Do we call Joyce Kilmer a Druid for her poem, 'Trees'? Do we accuse Elizabeth Barrett Browning of idolatry for Robert in her Sonnet 43? No, of coarse not.

It's clear in the prayer that Pope Pius XII is giving God all the glory for bestowing our Blessed Mother with her gifts.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: "Christ contradicts Paul"

Stop right there.

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you think it does, your interpretation is faulty.

This is why you should always seek more than one source.

---

Huh????

YOU said Christ contradicts Paul. You just said that one comment ago.

---

Yes, I mis-spoke and expected Frodo to confirm Scripture does not contradict itself, at which time we could discuss his interpretation of Scripture, which is the problem. Instead, he concurred.

I notice you have no concern about Frodo's statement or position.

Paul was a great servant of the Lord, but putting him above Christ, as Frodo does and you seem to agree with, leads to error in doctrine.

Pity you don't show such attention when Coke Bear or Sam explain their understanding of Scripture. While I disagree with the RC doctrines in many places, discussion is much better than dismissal or the bitter character seen in some posts of this thread.

---

Frodo's point should be well taken. If you read the sources he linked, there is a very strong, biblical argument for his position. The problem may be in YOUR interpretation that is making you think he is "putting Paul above Christ" and your lack in understanding the concept of dispensations. If you took the time to try to study and understand it, you might see that there is no conflict between Jesus and Paul.

You have demonstrated a lack of common sense and a flawed sense of perception in other threads, which was verified by others. So your characterization of my interactions with others here being anything other than discussion is likely similarly flawed. I am firm, and I am challenging others' beliefs. There is no bitterness on my end. Your perceptions are distorted. Disagreement is not "dismissal".

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

As stated earlier, baptism obtains the forgiveness of all sin, including original sin and personal sin.

Many of the earliest church fathers agree:

Shepard of Hermas - 140 AD:
" 'I have heard, sir,' said I, 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'"

---

While I wait for a response to my previous post, I'll go ahead and start on my next point, regarding the above. Let's look at this by examining scripture. Look at Luke 18:9-14, where Jesus is telling the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

"..."Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other."


To be justified, means that one's sins are forgiven and one is considered righteous in God's eyes. How did this tax collector become justified? Wasn't it the truly repentant state of his heart? There was no water baptism, yet Jesus clearly says his repentance was acceptable to God and that he obtained a remission of sins. So how do we reconcile this with what the Shepard of Hermas said, that there is "no other repentance" except through water baptism, and that water baptism is when we obtain the remission of sins?

---

Sorry for the delay.

The Tax Collected was justified like everyone else was justified before Christ instituted the sacrament of Baptism. Just like Abraham was 'justified' before Jesus was born.

---

Not to speak for BTD, but since Jesus taught this parable to His disciples, and therefore expected they would repeat the lesson, doesn't that imply that non-baptismal justification subsequent to Christ's time on Earth is established by this parable?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

As stated earlier, baptism obtains the forgiveness of all sin, including original sin and personal sin.

Many of the earliest church fathers agree:

Shepard of Hermas - 140 AD:
" 'I have heard, sir,' said I, 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'"

---

While I wait for a response to my previous post, I'll go ahead and start on my next point, regarding the above. Let's look at this by examining scripture. Look at Luke 18:9-14, where Jesus is telling the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

"..."Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other."


To be justified, means that one's sins are forgiven and one is considered righteous in God's eyes. How did this tax collector become justified? Wasn't it the truly repentant state of his heart? There was no water baptism, yet Jesus clearly says his repentance was acceptable to God and that he obtained a remission of sins. So how do we reconcile this with what the Shepard of Hermas said, that there is "no other repentance" except through water baptism, and that water baptism is when we obtain the remission of sins?

---

Sorry for the delay.

The Tax Collected was justified like everyone else was justified before Christ instituted the sacrament of Baptism. Just like Abraham was 'justified' before Jesus was born.

---

When did Jesus specifically tie justification to water baptism, to where one does not receive justification without it?

BTD: "there is no conflict between Jesus and Paul."

I agree. The problem is that Frodo's interpretation of what Paul wrote is in error, and this is why he does not like the Scripture where Christ emphasized baptism.

What I have tried to show, but in your pride you refuse to hear, is that belief is not a snapshot of a moment for many people, but a process which has different points of change in it.

Going back to Christ's parable of the seeds, you may observe that the seeds which quickly sprout into leafy growth are also the sprouts which die quickly. The seeds which lead to actual grain to harvest take longer for everything, from germination to setting roots to finally growing into fruit. So too I believe that a believer goes through a number of stages, where questions and doubt must be wrestled with, and confirmation established only the way. This is something I believe the RC does well, confirmation of growth as a believer and in so doing setting the roots which protect the believer against later falling away.

Consequently, from one perspective baptism is not immediately essential for acceptance of Christ, but in many cases and prove essential in longer term confidence in the process of a walk with Christ. Many of Christ's followers while He walked the earth quit the faith and left; we have no way to know whether they returned later or were lost. The disciples who established the Church following Christ's resurrection and ascension received three years of teaching with Christ; it would seem to demonstrate that faith is not instantaneous but grows.

Baptism in that respect would seem to be important, even vital for most believers, although someone can start the walk before baptism. It would seem that God's mercy accounts for the few who die before they are able to be baptised with water.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for your post, Coke Bear. But I am still concerned by one part of it:
"Mary's intercession does not make her a 'mini-Christ'. All prayers are brought before Jesus. She is simply bringing our prayers to Jesus."
Why is it necessary for Mary to bring someone's prayer to Jesus? And doesn't that make her an intercessor, when that role is reserved for Christ, who pleads for us to the Father?
I mentioned before that I agree with intercession, when I am aware of someone's need and pray to God through Christ on my own decision, but don't see it the same way if someone else asks me to intercede for them.

Again, thanks for your thoughts on this.

---

Forgive me, but I believe that we may both be getting wrapped around the axel on "intercession' and "being and intercessor."
I'm embarrassed that I don't understand why it would not be OK to ask for an intercessor. Maybe that my background influencing me.

Paul tells us that we should pray and intercede for one another in 1 Tim 1-5:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

I know many Protestants key in on the mediator. We Catholics agree. All prayers are funneled to God thru Jesus. But people have to know what to pray for. I ask the saint to pray for me and my intercessions.
We see in Rev 5:8:

"The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints"

The 24 elders are 'hearing' those prayers and presenting them to Jesus.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for your post, Coke Bear. But I am still concerned by one part of it:
"Mary's intercession does not make her a 'mini-Christ'. All prayers are brought before Jesus. She is simply bringing our prayers to Jesus."
Why is it necessary for Mary to bring someone's prayer to Jesus? And doesn't that make her an intercessor, when that role is reserved for Christ, who pleads for us to the Father?
I mentioned before that I agree with intercession, when I am aware of someone's need and pray to God through Christ on my own decision, but don't see it the same way if someone else asks me to intercede for them.

Again, thanks for your thoughts on this.

---

Forgive me, but I believe that we may both be getting wrapped around the axel on "intercession' and "being and intercessor."
I'm embarrassed that I don't understand why it would not be OK to ask for an intercessor. Maybe that my background influencing me.

Paul tells us that we should pray and intercede for one another in 1 Tim 1-5:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

I know many Protestants key in on the mediator. We Catholics agree. All prayers are funneled to God thru Jesus. But people have to know what to pray for. I ask the saint to pray for me and my intercessions.
We see in Rev 5:8:

"The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints"

The 24 elders are 'hearing' those prayers and presenting them to Jesus.

---

For me at least, it comes down to the reason for the intercession. For example, if I hear about a friend going through illness, loss of a job or some other trial or tragedy, I would bring them up before the Lord and ask HIs help. That is how I see intercession from a human behavior.

If someone I did not know, however, came to me and asked that I put in a word for them because I appear to be favored by God, that comes across as an attempt to manipulate the matter, the person asking me to tilt the scales in their favor, which would be inappropriate in that context.

Jesus acting as intercessor is different for two reasons. First, Christ has standing to ask for mercy that we do not deserve, and which we could not ask for ourselves. Second, and this is just me, I believe that when the Father and Son are together, so also is the Holy Spirit, and there is no way for an outcome except that which is rightly aligned with the Lord's Will.

I hope that makes sense.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Catholics believe Mary is sinless, was assumed into heaven bodily like Jesus, pray to her, kiss her statue, and some believe she is a Co-Redeemer.....you don't think that is idolatry?

---

Have you ever kissed a picture of your wife, kids, parents or grandparents? Does that mean that you worship them? No, of course not. It means you love them. You show their likeness an affection. It is reminding you of them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even regarding her as the "holiest human to ever walk the earth" has absolutely no biblical basis, and is dangerously close to idolatry. And more importantly, as OldBear pointed out, it directly contradicts Jesus when he said "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John (the Baptist)."

---

As I responded to OldBear83, please carefully without bias read the first 10 verses of Matthew 11. Jesus is clearly referring to John as the greatest among the prophets.

Plus look at all the holy people that in scripture Moses, Abraham, Peter, & Paul.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here is a prayer from Pope Pius XII:
"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty,

and impelled by the anxieties of the world,
we cast ourselves into your arms,
O Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary,
confident of finding in your most loving heart
appeasement of our ardent desires,
and a safe harbour from the tempests
which beset us on every side.
Though degraded by our faults
and overwhelmed by infinite misery,
we admire and praise the peerless richness
of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you,
above every other mere creature,
from the first moment of your conception
until the day on which,
after your assumption into heaven,
he crowned you Queen of the Universe.
O crystal Fountain of Faith,
bathe our minds with the eternal truths!
O fragrant Lily of All Holiness,
captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume!
O Conqueress of Evil and Death,
inspire in us a deep horror of sin,
which makes the soul detestable to God
and a slave of hell! O well-beloved of God,
hear the ardent cry
which rises up from every heart.
Bend tenderly over our aching wounds.
Convert the wicked,
dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed,
comfort the poor and humble,
quench hatreds, sweeten hardness,
safeguard the flower of purity in youth,
protect the holy church,
make all men feel the attractions of Christian goodness.
In your name,
resounding harmoniously in heaven,
may they recognize that they are brothers,
and that the nations are members of one family,
upon which may there shine forth the sun
of a universal and sincere peace.
Receive, O most sweet Mother,
our humble supplications,
and above all obtain for us that,
one day, happy with you,
we may repeat before your throne that hymn
which today is sung on earth around your altars:
You are all-beautiful, O Mary!
You are the glory,
your are the joy,
your are the honor of our people!
Amen. "
These words are praise and worship that should be given to JESUS and GOD ONLY. Can you honestly read these words and not see idolatry??

---

Idolatry is denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God.

Please show me in the prayer where it equates Mary to God or Jesus and states that we should worship her as a God. It doesn't. It does offer praise "express warm approval or admiration of" and honor "high respect; great esteem"

This prayer is like a poem. Do we call Joyce Kilmer a Druid for her poem, 'Trees'? Do we accuse Elizabeth Barrett Browning of idolatry for Robert in her Sonnet 43? No, of coarse not.

It's clear in the prayer that Pope Pius XII is giving God all the glory for bestowing our Blessed Mother with her gifts.

---

- I might kiss a picture of my loved ones - but I do not bow, pray to, make offerings to a picture or graven statue of them in a church, where we're supposed to love and worship God.

- Jesus clearly said, "among those born of women". That obviously includes Mary.

- So, as long as it's not "divine worship", or elevating something to the level of God, then the worshiping of anything other than God, such as any idol, is ok? So, is it ok to bow, pray to, write poems about, sing hymns to, and make offerings to an idol, so as long as we say that the idol is UNDER God and we give God the glory for bestowing our beloved idol with all the qualities that are worthy of our praise? This technicality seems like just an ad hoc excuse to get away with worshiping what you want to worship. Do you honestly think God is going to be ok with this? Do you think Jesus/God really likes us coming to Him by proxy, instead of directly, and worshiping him by proxy, instead of directly?

I implore all Catholics to take a step back, and honestly look at this for what it really is. Did you read the excerpts from The Glories of Mary above? Can you honestly say that isn't idolatry?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BTD: "there is no conflict between Jesus and Paul."

I agree. The problem is that Frodo's interpretation of what Paul wrote is in error, and this is why he does not like the Scripture where Christ emphasized baptism.

What I have tried to show, but in your pride you refuse to hear, is that belief is not a snapshot of a moment for many people, but a process which has different points of change in it.

Going back to Christ's parable of the seeds, you may observe that the seeds which quickly sprout into leafy growth are also the sprouts which die quickly. The seeds which lead to actual grain to harvest take longer for everything, from germination to setting roots to finally growing into fruit. So too I believe that a believer goes through a number of stages, where questions and doubt must be wrestled with, and confirmation established only the way. This is something I believe the RC does well, confirmation of growth as a believer and in so doing setting the roots which protect the believer against later falling away.

Consequently, from one perspective baptism is not immediately essential for acceptance of Christ, but in many cases and prove essential in longer term confidence in the process of a walk with Christ. Many of Christ's followers while He walked the earth quit the faith and left; we have no way to know whether they returned later or were lost. The disciples who established the Church following Christ's resurrection and ascension received three years of teaching with Christ; it would seem to demonstrate that faith is not instantaneous but grows.

Baptism in that respect would seem to be important, even vital for most believers, although someone can start the walk before baptism. It would seem that God's mercy accounts for the few who die before they are able to be baptised with water.

---

Have you read the links he provided? Can you tell us where it is wrong?

You don't understand Frodo's point - there is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul, because they are talking about two different things. Can you falsify this position?

Where does Jesus "emphasize baptism" in regards to salvation? Where does he say that without it, one will not be saved?

There is no issue with my "pride". Once again, you are talking about points that are irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you interpret this response as "bitterness", "pride", "anger", and "filth". Your perceptions are often wrong, and they are wrong here, again.

You have my responses, please stop ignoring them as they will not change.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have my responses, please stop ignoring them as they will not change.

---

There isn't anything to ignore. You haven't given your reasons why the points in the link Frodo provided are false. Nor have you explained how Frodo's points about baptism contradict Jesus' "emphasis" of baptism.

You have all that pride and arrogance, yet nothing of Christ in you.

Argue with yourself, I will heed Proverbs 12:16 and move on to better things.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have all that pride and arrogance, yet nothing of Christ in you.

Argue with yourself, I will heed Proverbs 12:16 and move on to better things.

---

You can stop with all that "pride and arrogance" stuff, and thinking you know who has Christ and who doesn't. It's quite established that you have a problem with perception and awareness.

And it looks like you just want to avoid his points. You can't justify your statement that Frodo's interpretation is wrong, and you are right, then. So how do you know for sure?

Oldbear83For me at least, it comes down to the reason for the intercession. For example, if I hear about a friend going through illness, loss of a job or some other trial or tragedy, I would bring them up before the Lord and ask HIs help. That is how I see intercession from a human behavior.
[quote=Oldbear83 said:

---

If someone I did not know, however, came to me and asked that I put in a word for them because I appear to be favored by God, that comes across as an attempt to manipulate the matter, the person asking me to tilt the scales in their favor, which would be inappropriate in that context.

---

I'll be quite frank. I've never heard that presented that way. Is this mindset common in Protestant circles? It seems like I've heard several Protestants (and Catholics) ask others to pray for them.

I don't assume that anyone is "favored by God" anymore that I or anyone else. That's not part of my equation. I just want someone else to pray for my needs and visa versa.

A little lengthy, but Paul tells that that we are all one body:

13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one bodywhether Jews or Gentiles, slave or freeand we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

If we are all the body of Christ, we should want to ask others to pray for us. We are all necessary. We should want all to exceed.

James 5:16 says, "The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." This is why Catholics will ask the Saints for intercession. No one is more righteous than someone in heaven.

If I've still misunderstood your point, please let me know.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83For me at least, it comes down to the reason for the intercession. For example, if I hear about a friend going through illness, loss of a job or some other trial or tragedy, I would bring them up before the Lord and ask HIs help. That is how I see intercession from a human behavior.
[quote=Oldbear83 said:

---

If someone I did not know, however, came to me and asked that I put in a word for them because I appear to be favored by God, that comes across as an attempt to manipulate the matter, the person asking me to tilt the scales in their favor, which would be inappropriate in that context.

---

I'll be quite frank. I've never heard that presented that way. Is this mindset common in Protestant circles? It seems like I've heard several Protestants (and Catholics) ask others to pray for them.

I don't assume that anyone is "favored by God" anymore that I or anyone else. That's not part of my equation. I just want someone else to pray for my needs and visa versa.

A little lengthy, but Paul tells that that we are all one body:

13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one bodywhether Jews or Gentiles, slave or freeand we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

If we are all the body of Christ, we should want to ask others to pray for us. We are all necessary. We should want all to exceed.

James 5:16 says, "The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." This is why Catholics will ask the Saints for intercession. No one is more righteous than someone in heaven.

If I've still misunderstood your point, please let me know.

---

Interesting passage, Coke Bear. I always interpreted that to note that we serve different functions but have the same value in the eyes of Christ.

The distinction for me is when someone whom I don't know asks me to speak for them. In the same way that I would be reluctant to vouch for someone I do not know as a professional reference, so it would seem strange to me to ask one of the Disciples or Christ's mother to speak for me. I can see asking a friend or pastor to speak for me, but I never saw praying to Mary as appropriate.

In any case, thanks for your courtesy and thoughts.