How Do You Guys Respond To This?

[the lumberjack]

now, as a "Protestant" Christian, I've learned a bit about Catholicism...and I'm learning more and more every day. I turn to a couple sources for my basis of knowledge on Catholicism...and so far, you guys have shown me that we walk ALMOST the same path of faith...which is a VERY good thing.

now, the site listed below is one of the major references I have when it comes to Catholicism...apart from the wonderful discussions I've had here so far with you various brethren...and sistren, in Christ.

I was wondering if when you guys had the time, if you could go thru, piece by piece and give me where YOU PERSONALLY stand...not what the Catholic Church teaches, but where you PERSONALLY stand with what the site says in its different pieces and parts. Now, I know how important the beliefs of "the Church" are and how much you/we should value them, but if your church is teaching something wack, isn't it YOUR/MY/OUR job to go back, read the Bible, keep it in context, and see exactly what the deal REALLY is?

I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again...the catholic church gave "us" ("us" being you and me...and everyone else who has it) the Bible...fine. That gives no one the right to contort, twist, and stretch the words contained in it. Cults, religious sects, off shoots of wack religions, Catholics AND Protestants BOTH also do it...and we don't have the right to.

Concordances are a GREAT help in translating the word...and commentaries can better HELP us intrepret it in a way that might be easier to help US understand it... but in the end, the Bible is the Word of God, and like God, it is irrefutable, immovable, and solid...that is why when I post, I use the Bible and a concordance...and if I KNOW that a brother in Christ has a solid foundation of doctrine, I'll quote him. So while I LOVE my church and what it teaches and where my Pastor stands, if he were to EVER start preaching something "iffy" I would most definitely look it up for myself...and call him on it. We are all ministers of the word...with a calling from God to evangelize the world...each according to our own measure of faith. and for this, I am thankful. (I REALLLY don't know exactly what this last rant was about, but I felt I should put it in...and I did...maybe cuz its 12:30 in the am? hahaha oh well)

PLEASE, [b]TRY[/b] to keep your answers to less than one screen-length...and I KNOW that NONE of y'all have 36 inch computer screens! so I, and the rest of us can read them.

[img]http://www.menardsigns.com/images/catalog_files/spam.jpg[/img] [color=red][edited by foundsheep:Linking to anticath website][/color]love.

[PedroX]

I'm sorry, I don't see the weblink.

peace...

[the_rev]

Same here Pedro, and secondly Lumberjack, Are you catholic? I'm assuming not?

[cmotherofpirl]

I think you forgot the link.

"Now, I know how important the beliefs of "the Church" are and how much you/we should value them, but if your church is teaching something wack, isn't it YOUR/MY/OUR job to go back, read the Bible, keep it in context, and see exactly what the deal REALLY is?
"

There is problem wth your assumption here. You are assuming the Bible is the only authority here, and that is simply not true. As you have agreed the Scriptures came from the Church. Therefore the Church is OLDER than the Scripture. The Scriptures are part of the Church, not the other way arond. The Bible is a catholic selection of writings, so obviously the Church wouldn't put something in it, that did not agree with Church teaching.
You want us to use our own book against us, and that isn't possible.

Remember the part in the NT where it says take disputes to the Church? It doesn't say run and look in a book. Only the Church has the authority to make decisions and loose and bind.

Scripture is part of the Church, but so is the written Traditions handed on from the Apostles. Both have equal authority.
Please excuse spelling errors, I am typing while holding a cat.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 8 2004, 07:55 AM'] I am typing while holding a cat. [/quote]
Appropriate for a CATholic website

(ducks at the tomatoes being thrown at him)

One priest said once that since the Catholic Church gave the world the bible, why not let the Catholic Church interpret the bible?

[ironmonk]

[quote]now, as a "Protestant" Christian, I've learned a bit about Catholicism...and I'm learning more and more every day. I turn to a couple sources for my basis of knowledge on Catholicism...and so far, you guys have shown me that we walk ALMOST the same path of faith...which is a VERY good thing.[/quote]

It's great to see a protestant brother see through the anti-Catholic lies that float around the world. Thank you.

ref: [url="http://www.ianpaisley.net"]http://www.ianpaisley.net[/url]


[quote]I was wondering if when you guys had the time, if you could go thru, piece by piece and give me where YOU PERSONALLY stand...not what the Catholic Church teaches, but where you PERSONALLY stand with what the site says in its different pieces and parts. Now, I know how important the beliefs of "the Church" are and how much you/we should value them, but if your church is teaching something wack, isn't it YOUR/MY/OUR job to go back, read the Bible, keep it in context, and see exactly what the deal REALLY is?[/quote]

If we believed differently than what the Church teaches we would not be of One Faith.

The Catholic Churches official teaching, cannot be wack. I understand your point, but we believe that when Jesus said that the Church would never be overcome, and that the Spirit of Truth would be sent to the Church, and that Jesus would be with the Church until the end of time, and that "[color=red]He who hears you, hears me[/color]" means that the Church cannot never teach wacked teachings.

Now, certain people in the Church can, but the bible warns us that wolves will reach places of authority... Acts 20:30

We also believe that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).


We would be wacked if we thought differently than the offcial teaching.

I hope that helps.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
ironmonk

[Paladin D]

Not to get off subject here, but just wanted to let you know Lumberjack, that a lot of us Catholics are former-Protestants. So we aren't ignorant when it comes to Protestantism .

Hope you enjoy your stay, and continue to learn more and more about Catholicism!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 8 2004, 10:14 AM'] Appropriate for a CATholic website

(ducks at the tomatoes being thrown at him)

[/quote]
Cassidy hisses at you appropriately .

In her great adventure she jumped off the frig and broke her leg, so she expects to be carried and held at all times. She frequently assists me by hitting keys and deleting entire paragraphs.



yep.
The Church did not pick gospels and letters out haphazardly. They were picked because they fit the theology handed down by the Apostles and disciples.

[the lumberjack]

it would seem as if someone went thru and made a debauchery of the link I had up....hmmmm...

here it is again.

[color=red][Edite by IcePrincess: The Spam picture usually means dUSt took the link out because he found in inappropriate. Since (it appears) he removed it once I'm removing it again. If anyone wants the link they can PM Lumberjack for it.][/color]

and as late as it was...I DO remember NOT putting in that picture of SPAM.

thank you to whoever did that.

[Sammy Blaze]

HI all,

Upon searching this "interesting" site, I liked the brief, inaccurate portrayal of Catholic beliefs, lol. I was interested though to read what the early church fathers had to say about Sola Scriptura. I found rather vague interpretation of what our early fathers said. I did enjoy the part where they used the fact that the early church fathers cited the Bible thousands of times in early letters as proof that they believed in Sola Scriptura. That must mean my priest believes in Sola Scriptura becasue he cites the BIble when he talks to me. This site is is designed to augment the idea that 1)Catholic's aren't Christians 2) Catholics aren't saved..
There's no point in answering these vague accusations but here's one:

[quote]Mary, Jesus' Mother
 

Protestants have historically held Mary in high regard as a godly and highly favored woman of God, a sinner saved by the grace of her divine Son.

Catholic dogma, on the other hand, has exalted her in an irresponsible and idolatrous way. She is declared to have been free from all original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, first declared in 1854; Catechism 491-492), free from any actual sin during her life (Catechism 411), and perpetually a virgin even after the birth of Jesus (Catechism 499-500).


Mary... was redeemed from the moment of her conception... preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
    -Catechism 491
Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
    -Catechism 493 [/quote]

haha this quote was taken from a section titled,
"Ways in which the Bible and the Roman Catholic church differ "
Besides the outrageous accustations to Catholic theology in this small paragraph;
Where is the Bible quote in the above statment???????

Pax Christ ~S.

[Sammy Blaze]

[quote]The Bible says:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
    -1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV) Jesus Christ of Nazareth... Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
    -Acts 4:10-12 (KJV)
[/quote]

ooopps I found it. haha would any Catholic dispute that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation??? And since there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus, does that necessarilly mean there is no mediator between man and a relationship with Jesus?
I could go on but it seems like I'd be preaching to the choir, I mean there are so many knowledgable apologists here...
~S.

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 8 2004, 11:52 AM'] it would seem as if someone went thru and made a debauchery of the link I had up....hmmmm...

here it is again.

[color=red][Edite by IcePrincess: The Spam picture usually means dUSt took the link out because he found in inappropriate. Since (it appears) he removed it once I'm removing it again. If anyone wants the link they can PM Lumberjack for it.][/color]

and as late as it was...I DO remember NOT putting in that picture of SPAM.

thank you to whoever did that. [/quote]
though I don't TOTALLY agree with the fact that others post links in support of what they write, and I was just doing the same...

I respect the fact that you don't want that stuff on your site.

and as for the site...just hit me if you really want to see what it says.

then you can partially see where I'm coming from.

peace.

[jmjtina]

It seems as if the [i]misconceptions[/i] of the Catholic Church are being advocated on the site you posted.

We can disagree on many things, but to not understand what the Chuch teaches and have misconceptions of what we really teach and believe isn't doing anyone a favor. I mean, just look at the way they say, "[i]Catholic dogma, on the other hand, has exalted her in an irresponsible and idolatrous way." [/i] No, that is [b]wrong[/b], obviously they don't really care about what we truly believe about the Most Holy Virgin else they wouldn't have said that.

there is just too many sites dedicated to advocating misconceptions about the Catholic Church.

:spammer:




Peace and God Bless.

[the lumberjack]

but Mary had other kids.

The Bible says so.

she WASN'T a virgin all her life.

and she WAS born under the law, under sin, like everyone else.

she WAS blessed among women...that IS in the Bible, and I'm not doubting that.

but she IS NOT the mother of God.

[MC Just]

The bible and the Catholic Church don't differ, the bible rightfully belongs to the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church knows the true meaning of the Bible. That's why our church is so sophisticated. Yeah there are tons of "Know it all" bible believers but trust me, do you really think it's up to the "Individual person" to find out what the bible means even after 2000 years? It was the Catholic church who wrote and put all the books of the bible under one cover, I trust my church before some dude who pops out of nowehere claiming new revelation. Which basically happens everyday. "The bible this, the bible that! Just remember and study the history on where it came from. As for Mary having other kids, the bible does not say she did, you and your interpretation says so and those are two totally different things. So many people trying to impose their views into the Scriptures rather than pulling the meaning out.

[MC Just]

What we believe about the bible is more reverant than you may think or believe.

[marielapin]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 8 2004, 03:52 PM'] but Mary had other kids.

The Bible says so.

she WASN'T a virgin all her life.

and she WAS born under the law, under sin, like everyone else.

she WAS blessed among women...that IS in the Bible, and I'm not doubting that.

but she IS NOT the mother of God. [/quote]
If you say Mary is not the mother of God, I'm assuming that means that you do not believe Jesus is God?

The Bible does not say that Mary had other kids.

It says that Jesus had "brothers".

There were plenty of places where the Bible could have said: the children of Mary and Joseph are Jesus, child 2, child 3, etc. But it doesn't.

See below.

The Brethren of the Lord

A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation "his brethren" or "the brethren of the Lord" (Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5). Four such "brethren" are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness.

Two questions in connexion with these "brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren".

(1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon. James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matt 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.

(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen 13:8, 14:14-16; Lev 10:4; 1 Par 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.

For the Cousin Theory: ST. JEROME, Adv. Helvid. in P.L., XXIII; MILL, Pantheistic Principles, 220-316; VIGOUROUX, Les Livres saints et la critique, V, 397-420; CORLUY, Les frères de N.S.J. C. in Etudes (1878), I, 5, 145; MEINERTZ, Der Jacobusbrief und sein Verfasser (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 6-54; CORNELY, Introductio (Paris, 1897), III, 592 sqq.; SCHEGG, Jacobus der Br¨der des Herrn (Munich, 1883); LAGRANGE in Rev. Bibl. (1906), 504, 505. For the Step-Brother Theory : LIGHTFOOT, Comm. on Gal., 252-291. For the Helvidian View : HASTINGS, Dict. Bib., I, 320; ZAHN, Forschungen, VI, Brueder und Vettern Jesu (Leipzig, 1900).

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='Sammy Blaze' date='Mar 8 2004, 12:37 PM'] The Bible says:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
-1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV) Jesus Christ of Nazareth... Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
-Acts 4:10-12 (KJV) [/quote]
As if any good Catholic with a grip on what the Church teaches would dispute that Jesus is the only way to salvation!

In addition, if Jesus were the only mediator between God and man, why did God send Gabriel to deliver the news to Mary? God can do anything He wants. Why didn't he just tell her Himself? (BTW, I'm not questioning God--I'm just using this as an example to prove a point.) By their way of thinking, it was even wrong for God to use an angel to mediate between himself and man.

God bless.

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 8 2004, 02:43 AM'] I was wondering if when you guys had the time, if you could go thru, piece by piece and give me where YOU PERSONALLY stand...not what the Catholic Church teaches, but where you PERSONALLY stand with what the site says in its different pieces and parts. Now, I know how important the beliefs of "the Church" are and how much you/we should value them, but if your church is teaching something wack, isn't it YOUR/MY/OUR job to go back, read the Bible, keep it in context, and see exactly what the deal REALLY is? [/quote]
Hi, Lumberjack. Welcome to Phatmass.

As Catholics, our personal beliefs and what the Church teaches coincide. What the Church teaches is correct, because of what Jesus said to our first pope, Peter.

[b]And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19[/b]

We don't question this. Our personal beliefs are what the Church teaches us.

Hope this helps. God bless.

[the lumberjack]

I'm not imposing anything...and I'm defintely not bringing new revelation...and I'm definitely NOT a know it all, by ANY means.

The catholic church did not write the Bible, the Prophets, Judges, and Kings of the old testament did...the Apostles, Disciples and Brethren of the new testament did.

and the bible is unchanging...no matter who wrote it and how much was added and how much its distorted and whatever else is done to it. WE can ALWAYS go back to the Greek and Hebrew to see EXACTLY what was meant and said, without having to see the interpretation of one man or another.

and if you say that Mary had no more children, fine, you believe that...but the Bible does say otherwise...in Greek, not english.

hopefully this site isn't offensive:

[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org"]a DOPE onliine concordance[/url]

I'm not the only person on these boards to say that this concordance IS dope, and has MUCH to offer us to learn.

-----

and Mrs Frozen, God didn't tell her himself cuz she would have exploded into a bajillion little chunks. No human can gaze upon the Glory of the Almighty God and live...ain't that right? See Moses's story. And Jesus didn't tell her and Joseph Himself cuz....well, then He would have ALREADY been here!

and Gabriel wasn't a mediator...he was/is a messenger.

delivering a message from God and talking to us and talking to God for us are different, and I hope you agree.

-----

and Marielapin,

at the Council of Chalcedon (451a.d.) wasn't Mary given the title of Theokotos? which means God-bearer, or Mother of God? Well see, the thing is Mary was truly Jesus' mother, but I mean, come on, she was Christ's mother in respect to his humanity, not His deity. God CHOSE her to give birth to the Messiah, not the other way around.like I've said, "blessed among women" sure...but even Christ HIMSELF downplayed the relationship with her while TOTALLY emphasizing His relationship with His believers....Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 11:27-28

love.