Why Do Catholics Do That?

[Eliza Thomason]

Theologically speaking, the Hail Mary is indrectly considered part of the holy trinity through the Holy Spirit which "impregnated" her. Practically speaking, the catholic church has always been pragmatic and thus allowed the practice of idol-like figures, as long as people's main loyalty was given to the church.

Hi FDG. My dh answered this. He he goes:

> Theologically speaking, the Hail Mary is indrectly considered part of the holy trinity
> through the Holy Spirit which "impregnated" her.

Theologically speaking? What kind of theology? It is certainly not Catholic.
The 'Hail Mary' is not a person, but a formalised petition asking Mary to pray for us. We ask Mary to pray for us as we would ask any friend to pray for us, but we regard her as our most powerfull friend in heaven because she is the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mary is not in any sense part of the Godhead -- not even 'indirectly' as you say. She is a _creature_, even as we are creatures, but she is the creature whose perfect obedience made it possible for the Eternal Word to become flesh.

> Practically speaking, the catholic church has always been pragmatic
> and thus allowed the practice of idol-like figures,
> as long as people's main loyalty was given to the church.

The saints are not 'idol-like figures' but very members in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27) whose intercessions in heaven on our behalf are of the greatest value.

FDG, the Catholic Church makes it very clear that Mary is not part of the Holy Trinity. (and that's bad math!) She is a created person, like us. One of her titles, though, is "Spouse of the Holy Spirit". Something to chew on.

[Words]

Thanks you for the Questions, Words! This is another two-fer; my husband took some of these on earlier this week. I will put his words in blue.

1. LOL; I read the Bible. Here is my SLI husband's comment (all his comment will be in blue):
I cannot speak for other Catholics any more than you can speak for other members of whatever church you belong to. I can only say that I have read the entire Bible from cover to cover several times in both the Rheims Douay and the A.V., as well as most of the New Testament in the Vulgate and large parts of it in Greek.

2. > 2. As for marriage annulment - why doesn't the priest who conducts the marriage do an investigation prior to marriage? The priest is indeed expected to do just that. It is known as 'pre-Cana counselling'.

> Marriage is forever in the eyes of God is what is taught to Catholics in the UK,
... and indeed everwhere else. The teachings Catholic Church are the same everywhere and always.

You're right, Words, we need to get this right at the start! Yes, this is supposed to be done through pre-Cana. But too often its done poorly. It needs to be regularized.

Yes, outsiders looking in can jump to the assumption that annulments are granted simply to keep more people in the Church. However, if that were truly our motive, the Church could accomplish that in greater numbers by letting go of some very unpopular doctrine. (Artificial birth control, anyone?) But she won't, ever.
But certainly you can see that there are very good reasons why a marraige should not have taken place. Aylen's list shares many, or perhaps all, of the reasons with why a marraige might be annulled.

3. Anyone who agrees with Peter's confession of faith in Matthew 16:16 is a Christian.
A Catholic Christian is one who further accepts the promise our Lord's made to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19.

Dh's answer is good but I will also say I agree. We should primarily focus on what we have in common, we Christians, Catholic or Protestant or other kinds. Sometimes you need to focus on the distinctives though. Because where the theologies disagree, there is a right answer. We want to do what is true and right, so we give it thought.

Thank you for your response Eliza.

A little background on me fwiw, I was brought up a Catholic and attented a Catholic school (denominational schools are the norm where I live). We had quite a bit of religious education, every afternoon of school focused on it. I found this interesting:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standin...read-the-bible

Just a paragraph from it:

"Ordinary Catholics might not be so adept at quoting chapter and verse, but they do know and use Scripture regularly. Its just that they use it in a different way. For a Catholic, Scripture is not so much a book to be studied as a book to worship with. (Ps. 119.7) For Catholics the Bible is almost always used in the context of worship. Did you know that a survey was done to check the amount of Scripture used in the Catholic Mass? The Catholic service was almost 30% Scripture. When the same writer checked his local Bible-based Evangelical church he was surprised to find the total amount of Scripture read took just 3% of the service."

It was my recollection that the bible wasn't used, and that bible stories were 'adapted' and taught to us from the prescribed Catholic church interpretation/procedure, and other Catholics I know haven't read the bible.

It wasn't until I was an adult and had moved away from the Faith that I decided to read the bible. I am not a particularly religious person but at that point I was looking into various esoteric things and for various reasons decided to read the bible for the first time.

It's my opinion (sorry I can't remember what I base it on as it's been a while since i've studied such things) that traditionally Catholic clergy were the ones who taught what was in the bible to Catholics, I think part of the reformation was to make the bible available to everyone. Personally I think reading the bible oneself is a profound experience whether one is religious or not, but my thoughts are that traditionally Catholics don't read the bible due an historic level of control by the church, not withstanding of course that the ability to read was not a common thing in the past! I don't say this to attack in anyway, history is there and that appears to be the gist of it.

As for the annulments, I find this interesting, for instance I remember attending mass and some people could not take Holy Communion due to them being divorced.

The quote from Matthew 16:17-19 is interesting to me, i'm not quite sure of the distinction between this and non Catholics? If you could point me to where I could read about it would be awesome, thanks.

But yes, as part of my previous investigations I got involved with theological discussions and it surprised me to learn that there was a distinction between Catholics and Christians in some peoples eyes, as my perspective was a Christian was one who believed in Christ as "God the Son", even Messianic Jews for instance.

Overall it's been my take that someone can be a Christian without attending Mass or attaching themselves to any particular name of Christianity, when groups get large unfortunately it allows for levels of corruption to creep in, which sadly we've seen when Catholic priests (or other ones) have done things not in accordance with Christianity.

[FDG]

Hi FDG. My dh answered this. He he goes:

> Theologically speaking, the Hail Mary is indrectly considered part of the holy trinity
> through the Holy Spirit which "impregnated" her.

Theologically speaking? What kind of theology? It is certainly not Catholic.
The 'Hail Mary' is not a person, but a formalised petition asking Mary to pray for us. We ask Mary to pray for us as we would ask any friend to pray for us, but we regard her as our most powerfull friend in heaven because she is the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mary is not in any sense part of the Godhead -- not even 'indirectly' as you say. She is a _creature_, even as we are creatures, but she is the creature whose perfect obedience made it possible for the Eternal Word to become flesh.

> Practically speaking, the catholic church has always been pragmatic
> and thus allowed the practice of idol-like figures,
> as long as people's main loyalty was given to the church.

The saints are not 'idol-like figures' but very members in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27) whose intercessions in heaven on our behalf are of the greatest value.

FDG, the Catholic Church makes it very clear that Mary is not part of the Holy Trinity. (and that's bad math!) She is a created person, like us. One of her titles, though, is "Spouse of the Holy Spirit". Something to chew on.

Basically, this means what I said is correct but can't be explictly stated.

[Eliza Thomason]

Thank you for your response Eliza.

A little background on me fwiw, I was brought up a Catholic and attended a Catholic school (denominational schools are the norm where I live). We had quite a bit of religious education, every afternoon of school focused on it.

You are fortunate! I wanted that for my son, and at our first apartment after divorce (I had homeschooled previously; now state divorce law forced me to put him in school ) was right down the village block from a Diocesan Catholic school. I would have found a way to pay if it was worth it, but word around our Diocese was that our Catholic schools had become essentially nothing more than a "private school" experience, not a religious education, and clearly it was so. Our Diocese had a reputation nationwide for being very revisionist due to over 3 decades of a sad bad bishop. After I read the books the Diocese, under this bishop, ordered to be used in parish religious education, I decided not to even send him to that, finding real Catholic education books and covering that at home myself. However, I did not stick with it very religiously. They were hard years, and the priority was to handle the load of homework he brought home from his long day at school, when he just wanted to play... So different from our relaxed homeschooling lifestyle...

I found this interesting:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standin...read-the-bible

What a great link! I was inspired by Dwight Longneckers conversion story at the time I converted. Now he has been ordained a Priest! I read on his "About" page on that link: "In December 2006 he was ordained as a Catholic priest under the special pastoral provision for married former Anglican clergy". And there is a picture of him there with his wife and children!

But I am glad you pursued making your point. Even though there are many ways level different kinds of Protestant Christians with many practices and many different kinds of Catholics within any parish, still, one can see a difference in how your average Catholic and average Bible-alone Christian uses their Bible. Longnecker explains the difference, below, well. Yes, the Mass is Scripture-centered. Truly, going to Mass is like living the scripture.

My husband, who just asked what I am writing, comments, "For a Christian who has literacy its a little bit shameful to have not read through the Bible".

And he is so right! And I add, every literate Catholic also needs to read the Catechism!

A difference between how I use my Bible before and and how I use it now as a Catholic, is that now, if I want to know a theological point, I will not search in scripture in effort to figure it out. Instead I will look it up in my Catechism! Because it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel, nor to lean on my own understanding, because greater minds than mine have answered these questions, and most important: the answers in the Catechism, because of the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, are theologically perfect and scripturally sound.

Just a paragraph from it:

"Ordinary Catholics might not be so adept at quoting chapter and verse, but they do know and use Scripture regularly. Its just that they use it in a different way. For a Catholic, Scripture is not so much a book to be studied as a book to worship with. (Ps. 119.7) For Catholics the Bible is almost always used in the context of worship. Did you know that a survey was done to check the amount of Scripture used in the Catholic Mass? The Catholic service was almost 30% Scripture. When the same writer checked his local Bible-based Evangelical church he was surprised to find the total amount of Scripture read took just 3% of the service."

True. Also he makes god points further down the article that address other aspects of this complaint.

It was my recollection that the bible wasn't used, and that bible stories were 'adapted' and taught to us from the prescribed Catholic church interpretation/procedure, and other Catholics I know haven't read the bible.

Sort of it was the same in my Protestant Sunday School.

It wasn't until I was an adult and had moved away from the Faith that I decided to read the bible. I am not a particularly religious person but at that point I was looking into various esoteric things and for various reasons decided to read the bible for the first time.

Good for you!

It's my opinion (sorry I can't remember what I base it on as it's been a while since i've studied such things) that traditionally Catholic clergy were the ones who taught what was in the bible to Catholics, I think part of the reformation was to make the bible available to everyone. Personally I think reading the bible oneself is a profound experience whether one is religious or not, but my thoughts are that traditionally Catholics don't read the bible due an historic level of control by the church, not withstanding of course that the ability to read was not a common thing in the past! I don't say this to attack in anyway, history is there and that appears to be the gist of it.

Well, some of those stories about historic "control" over the Bible are popular false interpretations of reality by dissidents. Longneckers explanation at the end addresses some of that.

As for the annulments, I find this interesting, for instance I remember attending mass and some people could not take Holy Communion due to them being divorced.

I hear this from older Catholics often. Not sure what to make of it because just being divorced is not a sin. If you have remarried and your first marriages are not annulled - then, yes: Holy Communion is not allowed, as in the eyes of the Church (and therefore God) as the marraige you are in invalid, null and void, so you are living in an immoral state. (My husband points out that in the eyes of a church, as they are "still married" to the previous spouse, this puts one in the position of not only fornication but adultery, which is many times worse). So to protect Catholics from receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ "to their damnation", they need to refrain from receiving until the problem remedied. Actually there should be a big chunk of people sitting in the pews at communion because there are many reasons to refuse, as we are supposed to receive it worthily, and one can't always straighten things out or get to confession before communion. Sometimes the most devout ones are sitting in the pews..

The quote from Matthew 16:17-19 is interesting to me, i'm not quite sure of the distinction between this and non Catholics? If you could point me to where I could read about it would be awesome, thanks.

This goes into Catholic and Protestant distinctions and I will get to this in another sitting! Great, thoughtful questions!

[chriscorey]

Chris, that's really cool. I did not know that. 3-4 years ago is not so long ago! And your teacher must have been inspiring, having worked with Mother Theresa. My first prayer to Our Blessed Mother was to ask her, "Are you my mother?" - I asked this first after askign the Holy Spirit to show me the truth. because as a Protestant Mary was the biggest problem for me, even then, after what I had read about eh Church's real teachign on Mary, the old taboo was there. So I asked, and then I prayed the Memorare, which was one of Mother Theresa's favorite efficacious prayers she prayed whenever she needed anything. I was inspired to pray it in a little gift-book a Protestant friend gave me on Mother Theresa, which included that. Here is the prayer:

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary,
that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection,
implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother;
to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful.
O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions,
but in thy mercy hear and answer me.

Amen.

My answer came quickly - that moment I asked; I just knew in my heart (instead of just my head) the truth of who she is. My husband and I pray this one regularly, along with a prayer to St. Joseph, over 1900 years old...

Here is an interesting article by someone who worked with Mother Theresa you might like: http://catholicfoodie.com/mother-ter...express-novena

Yeah she was. The first time she worked with Mother Teresa was on the East coast and Mother Teresa made the Cardinal she was working with at the time take out all the air conditioning and the carpets in the building they were working in. Mother Teresa felt they should all live like the poor and be very humble.

My teacher was a nurse and she traveled the world doing charity for the Catholic Church.

[Eliza Thomason]

Yeah she was. The first time she worked with Mother Teresa was on the East coast and Mother Teresa made the Cardinal she was working with at the time take out all the air conditioning and the carpets in the building they were working in. Mother Teresa felt they should all live like the poor and be very humble.

My teacher was a nurse and she traveled the world doing charity for the Catholic Church.

Aw, thanks for sharing that, Chris. No good person is without their detractors, and Mother Teresa of course has them. (And it seems the more good they are the more rabid their detractors can be!*) And why not? Jesus Himself had detractors - people who thought they knew better than He how He should do things. Some of the criticism of her is aimed at her insistence on living poorly like those she served, like in your air conditioner story. That is a point of contention for some, a reason she should not have been named a Saint (but, too bad, she already is!). But she lived true to the truths she held all her life. And one of those truths for her was, as you say, to live like the poor.

I can only imagine the impression your friend had on you after working with a living Saint. Holy people affect so many, its like a ripple that goes out and out. And to be in the presence of a holy person is a very quiet but powerful lasting impression. My priest back where I lived before I married was a very holy pious man and I remember his presence so well, and there is a sort of longing. Likewise many longed to be in the presences of Mother Teresa. Padre Pio was the same. Crowds would flock and flock to see him celebrate Mass. Because holy and pious people so well reflect God! And we long for God.

Yesterday I Googled Mother Teresa and Memorare, as I knew I could find an article that said how that was a favorite much-prayed efficacious prayer of hers, and I found that article which I linked you, and then I read. The "Padre"'s story of Mother Teresa getting him into the Papal chambers was charming, the Padre's reflection on how memorable that moment of celebrating Mass with two great holy persons so touched me - I could really imagine how soaring those moments must have been, and I could not sleep last night without first recalling it.


These words inspire me: "The miracle is not that we do this work, but that we are happy to do it." I am going to be asking St.Teresa for some help for this miracle!

______

*Like the Church! So good, so holy! And so rabid the detractors!

[Eliza Thomason]

Hi Words, I am going to answer these last three parts of your post out of order:

But yes, as part of my previous investigations I got involved with theological discussions and it surprised me to learn that there was a distinction between Catholics and Christians in some peoples eyes, as my perspective was a Christian was one who believed in Christ as "God the Son", even Messianic Jews for instance.

First of all its really cool that you ever got involved in theological discussions because, well, I always found theological discussions interesting and it has surprised me when people here on 16t have been hostile to it. To me it seems unexplained why you wouldn't wonder about such things. So I didn't know what to expect when I started this thread. I just figured that if I kept it to one thread then it would be easier for those who wanted to ignore it to ignore it.

I agree, you are so right, yes, a Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God. Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals and etc. etc. That is the bottom line. However, when you start to grow in your faith and look for specific answers, and you can't find them in your tradition and/or you find conflicting ones wherever you go, then the distinctives start to matter. You ask those who seem so sure of their view of how things should be: "Why do you believe that" and often the answer is, "Its clear in the Bible" and you wonder, how can there be so many different views, all based on the Bible?

Overall it's been my take that someone can be a Christian without attending Mass or attaching themselves to any particular name of Christianity, when groups get large unfortunately it allows for levels of corruption to creep in, which sadly we've seen when Catholic priests (or other ones) have done things not in accordance with Christianity.

Hmm, why pick on Catholic priests? Why not Protestant ministers? Every religion has its fakes and failures, because none of them are populated with only saints. Everyone has sinners in its ranks. You cannot judge a group by its betrayers. Jesus promised that in His Church there would be tares among the wheat. He said He would sort them out in the end.

To judge a religion, you have to look at the people adhering to its beliefs, not the fakes.

Also I should point out its not just large groups, as you said. Its small, too. Jesus had 12 apostles; one betrayed. Even with a PERFECT teacher! Yeah, so I'd say an average of at least 10% of any size group is likely to not represent the group...


Okay, the other parts I have to get to later! I keep having limited computer time! Please be patient!

[mikemex]

I wonder if I'm just wasting my time here. But I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt...

1. Why don't Catholics read the bible?

Just inertia...

Very few people realize that Hebrews were among the least developed civilizations of the ancient world as they discovered written language much later than other civilizations such as the Egyptians. Religious texts such as the Talmud and The Old Testament are pretty much their only ancient written work. Don't believe me? Just recall how many ancient treatises or novels you know that were first written in Hebrew dialects. Now, why is this important? Because this shows that most people around such places were illiterate. They couldn't read because there wasn't public education back then. This means that the population at large had an intrinsic reliance on priests for keeping written knowledge, since they were pretty much the only ones who knew how to write and read. You can't really hide such things: even surviving ruins in Rome and Greece contains lots of written stuff on them. Why? Because the average Roman or Greek knew at least the very basics of how to write and read, specially in Rome, since it was necessary for a lot of things. They've found oysters with names on them all around Greece, because this is the way the Greeks voted people to be ostracized. That the ancient world was illiterate as a whole is a big myth; it was just the norm in peripheral places such as Judea and during the Middle Age.

Problem is, for 1500 years Europe was stuck in that mode (over-reliance on priests). But in the Middle Age it wasn't really about people being illiterate as much as the Church keeping the contents of the Bible deliberately hidden. This was done simply by keeping it in languages people could no longer understand, such as Greek or Latin. In many places people were read the Bible in Latin, so they didn't understand much if anything at all. There was a mysterious appeal to the Bible that way and they could change the contents of the easily without people realizing it.

Obviously, this ended suddenly when some clueless priests began translating it into the vulgar languages...

1. As I mentioned, the apocryphal writings contradict many teachings in authentic scripture (necessity of good works, practice of praying for the dead, doctrine of purgatory, giving of alms).

2. The apocryphal writings contain numerous historical, geographical, and chronological errors

3. Jesus and the apostles cite the Old and New Testament (referring to it as scripture) nearly 300 times, but never quote any of the apocryphal writings accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

4. The apocryphal writings were never included in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews themselves, from whom the apocryphal writings came, did not accept the writings as divinely inspired. The apocryphal writings were not formally declared to be authoritative and inspired by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in AD 1546. The Catholic Church’s acceptance of these writings into the canon of Scripture was an effort to counter the teachings of Martin Luther and other leaders of reformation. These men were pointing out that many teachings of the Catholic Church came from the Apocrypha, NOT the 66 books of the bible.

This pretty much confirms what I said above. The contents of the Bible were revised many times during History and now we have have what the Church filtered according to their goals.

And I love the circular arguments by the way, such as the Bible citing itself. That's also called argument from authority and confirmation bias: you first assume the Bible to be true and then evaluate other things according to the criteria if they confirm or contradict what you already think.

In other words, James illustrated that good works are a byproduct of genuine faith.

(...) Are works needed to be saved? (...)

Throwing big words such as "authentic" or "genuine" doesn't make a claim any more true, did you know that? Sounds like standard Beta way of adulterating an statement by excessive usage of adjectives, preventing the one listening from forming their own conclusions and instead pushing the one you want through. I'll keep it in mind the next time I'm on a trial, though. Maybe I'll just state that the "authentic truth" is that I'm innocent and I'll be released right away...

Also, how can a faith be more true than any other? Faith is by definition a strictly subjective matter and thus this notion makes absolutely no sense here. Subjective space is multidimensional, so to speak, while reality is uni dimensional. In the real world you can't really go forward and backward at the same time, so when you state both then one of them must be false. That's a correct usage of logic. However, when it comes to subjective space, a person may go forward while another goes backward and the same statement (that they go backward and forward at the same time) is correct. They don't oppose each other because each is a separate context. So usage of logic on subjective matters such as faith, including the notion of contradiction, is a total total fallacy. There are no false or true beliefs, all are genuine simply by existing.

I also think you're confusing belief with knowledge. Belief doesn't really require anything beyond wishing to think about something in an specific way. Belief is divorced from reality. As soon as you have pretensions of linking your belief with the real world, you're entering the territory of knowledge. And the supreme authority in knowledge is evidence. It's not that scientists have something against religion; it's that religion rarely provides evidence to support it's claims, if at all. That's why violence is a constant when you analyze the history of religion: because lacking evidence, the one who pushes harder wins. But that's politics and nothing else. When they burned the Library of Alexandria, they asked themselves the same question as you do: do the "false works" need to be saved? And we all know their answer. But fortunately, nobody escapes from the judgement of History. And it has shown us that they were nothing but a illiterate yet fanatical mob with big pretensions. In every epoch there will be people who thinks they've got the ultimate truth, so they don't need anything else. But neither did they found any truth, nor there were capable of benefiting from diversity anymore. I'm against death penalty, but I'd gladly make an exception: I'd vote 'yes' for putting people who even suggests about suppressing any knowledge before a firing squad. All corruption through History revolves around one same thing: people adulterating the natural flow of information according to their goals.

[Computer Loser]

I wonder if I'm just wasting my time here. But I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt... .

If you intended in talking out of your ass, yeah, you are wasting time.

This pretty much confirms what I said above. The contents of the Bible were revised many times during History and now we have what the Church filtered according to their goals.

Actually, the contents of the bible has remained the same throughout history. The Catholic Church including the Apocrypha, on the other hand, is what is being argued. Get your facts straight.

And I love the circular arguments by the way, such as the Bible citing itself. That's also called argument from authority and confirmation bias: you first assume the Bible to be true and then evaluate other things according to the criteria if they confirm or contradict what you already think.

And I also love people responding out of context:

1. We are NOT arguing whether the bible is true or not.
2. We ARE arguing on whether the apocrypha should be included in the bible, in the context of Catholic vs. Protestant.
3. I gave 4 reasons. I welcome the opposing arguments. After all, that's how you avoid confirmation bias, right? So do you have any to enlighten me?

Judging by the things you wrote, its pretty clear you have NO IDEA what's going on.

Throwing big words such as "authentic" or "genuine" doesn't make a claim any more true, did you know that? Sounds like standard Beta way of adulterating an statement by excessive usage of adjectives, preventing the one listening from forming their own conclusions and instead pushing the one you want through. I'll keep it in mind the next time I'm on a trial, though. Maybe I'll just state that the "authentic truth" is that I'm innocent and I'll be released right away...

LMAO, nigga please. Since when are "authentic" and "genuine" big words? Look at you, throwing out “confirmation bias,” “logical fallacy,” “subjective space,” never mind your verbose, excessive and BORING explanations to prove your point.

I used that ONE word to prove a point, much like how you use MANY out of your ass to prove yours.

Also, how can a faith be more true than any other? Faith is by definition a strictly subjective matter and thus this notion makes absolutely no sense here. Subjective space is multidimensional, so to speak, while reality is uni dimensional. In the real world you can't really go forward and backward at the same time, so when you state both then one of them must be false. That's a correct usage of logic. However, when it comes to subjective space, a person may go forward while another goes backward and the same statement (that they go backward and forward at the same time) is correct. They don't oppose each other because each is a separate context. So usage of logic on subjective matters such as faith, including the notion of contradiction, is a total total fallacy. There are no false or true beliefs, all are genuine simply by existing.

So in a nutshell: You can't go forward and backward at the same time because they contradict. Nice fancy explanation bro, albeit long and boring. What is this, the Matrix?

You sound like a smart guy. (Or woman, if that's you in your avatar pic, whatever.) However, since you didn’t grasp anything I said let me illustrate with a simple example to dumb it down, just for you:

1. Let's say Jesus commands me to love people.
2. I SAY I have faith in Jesus and his teachings, but I go off on a mass killing spree. That isn’t very loving to people now is it?
3. You could then say my faith isn’t very genuine.

I also think you're confusing belief with knowledge. Belief doesn't really require anything beyond wishing to think about something in an specific way. Belief is divorced from reality. As soon as you have pretensions of linking your belief with the real world, you're entering the territory of knowledge....................

Blah blah blah blah. Boooooooorriiinnnnnnng. What are you, some college professor grading my essay?

I also think you need to chill out with the terminology/political correctness. You know what I meant... Actually, judging by your post, probably not.

It's not that scientists have something against religion…

Not all scientists are against religion. There are also a lot of Christian scientists.

..And the supreme authority in knowledge is evidence.......it's that religion rarely provides evidence to support it's claims, if at all.

There’s actually a lot of evidence supporting the Christian faith. But again, that's outside the scope of the argument.

I'm here asking about the Apocrypha and you're talking about religions and evidence. I have no idea why you derailed as far as you did, but whatever.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Hi FDG. My dh answered this. He he goes:

> Theologically speaking, the Hail Mary is indrectly considered part of the holy trinity
> through the Holy Spirit which "impregnated" her.

Theologically speaking? What kind of theology? It is certainly not Catholic.
The 'Hail Mary' is not a person, but a formalised petition asking Mary to pray for us. We ask Mary to pray for us as we would ask any friend to pray for us, but we regard her as our most powerfull friend in heaven because she is the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mary is not in any sense part of the Godhead -- not even 'indirectly' as you say. She is a _creature_, even as we are creatures, but she is the creature whose perfect obedience made it possible for the Eternal Word to become flesh.

> Practically speaking, the catholic church has always been pragmatic
> and thus allowed the practice of idol-like figures,
> as long as people's main loyalty was given to the church.

The saints are not 'idol-like figures' but very members in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27) whose intercessions in heaven on our behalf are of the greatest value.

FDG, the Catholic Church makes it very clear that Mary is not part of the Holy Trinity. (and that's bad math!) She is a created person, like us. One of her titles, though, is "Spouse of the Holy Spirit". Something to chew on.

Doesn't the Catholic Church consider Mary dead until the Day of Judgement? There is nothing scriptural about Mary presently "living" as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. There is also nothing scriptural about asking Mary or dead saints to intercede on your behalf: Jesus in the New Testament is clearly the sole soul Intercessor. Praying to Mary is similar to Shirk (idolatry) in Islam, although Islam has its own issues with putting Muhammad on a pedestal.

[Eliza Thomason]

Hi Subteigh! I keep thinking I should get back to this thread so you gave me a reason.

Doesn't the Catholic Church consider Mary dead until the Day of Judgement? .

No, neither Mary nor the Saints in Heaven nor the holy souls in purgatory are dead, but they are alive in Christ.

That idea that its wrong to pray to the dead - or worse - even for the dead, is a Protestant idea. As a Protestant, I can tell you that we never prayed for the dead - (prayers for the dead are markedly absent at a Protestant funeral!). I had been taught consistently - it was wrong or least certainly useless to pray for the dead (useless according to Protestant belief, their fate had only[I] two options: Heaven or Hell, both of those options being eternally forever (Catholics do believe that of those two options) having been already decided, so, they reason that there was nothing you can do for them now. You can imagine how hard it would be to have that as your belief when you have lost a dearly loved one whom you know was possibly or probably hostile to God to the end.

But as a Protestant I had a profound spiritual experience that made me absolutely positive that God did not disapprove - He even encouraged - some manner of praying for the dead. I'll share that story if someone is interested.

Later I became Catholic and was restored to the books of Holy Scripture that Martin Luther rejected because they challenged his own ideas, including Maccabees (which has the ONLY scripture reference to the origin of Hanukkah!) which makes it undeniably clear:

"It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." - 2 Maccabees 12:46

There is nothing scriptural about Mary presently "living" as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. ...

Here two scriptures that make it clear that the dead in Christ are not dead, but alive:

"Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" -John 11:25,26

"After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus." - Matthew 17:1-3

[note, above, that Moses had died over 1000 years earlier and Elijah was taken up to Heaven ("raptured"?)nearly 1000 years before they were seen here talking to Jesus].

As to Mary's title "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" - well, He overshadowed her, and He impregnated her. It is a Spouse that impregnates (the Holy Spirit does not behave like some cad). It is difficult to write this and not go off in tangents; its such an interesting topic! I will get too wordy explaining what makes it so true to me, and there so many who have explained this beautifully and better. Here is one that looks good, and not too long: http://www.marytruth.ca/MarySpouseHolySpirit.htm (I remember that Fr. William G. Most's writings were what helped me understand so much about Mary, when I had your questions, like, about her her amazing titles, like Spouse of the Holy Spirit. But I cannot find a short article on this topic by Fr. Most right now, online.)

The apostles and the first Christians held Mary in highest honor. And of course - they had the example of Jesus, who followed the Ten Commandments perfectly, including perfectly honoring His mother. This page http://www.roman-catholic-saints.com...s-of-mary.html tells how Mary, while still on earth, appeared to the Apostle James when he was discouraged.

It is the story of the fist known appearance of Mary. I am sure you are aware there have been so many! Sure there are fakes and imitators, but people really aren't that foolish. Like our Lady of the Pillar still being venerated these near 2000 years, veneration of Mary in her appearances is never going to go away because its REAL and miraculous. My favorites include Our Lady of Guadeloupe (and that miraculous image, painted by angels in 1531, has required today's science to prove how truly miraculous it is) and Our Lady of Fatima - witnessed by communist newspaper reporters and a crowd of tens and tens of thousands who came in dense rain and mud - because the miracle was foretold for that day. The historian William T. Walsh's account of Our Lady of Fatima is one I will never, never forget. What a rich, rich story! It is forever in my heart.

Martin Luther himself venerated her as Mary, Queen of Heaven, and taught that The Blessed Mother was, by grace, always sinless, due to the grace of her Immaculate Conception. It is only as Luther's new religion splintered off into more and more dis-unified churches that Mary's role has been depleted, in most Protestant circles, essentially to that of just a woman that God "used" to get Jesus here for us - and then He was "done" with her, apparently.

Before that, Marys place of honor was always acknowledged. One of her titles, "Cause of Our Salvation" can be explained by these words of St. Irenaeus (b.130 A.D.!) :

St. Irenaeus, in his famous Against Heresies (bet. 180-199) wrote:

". . . so also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith."

There is also nothing scriptural about asking Mary or dead saints to intercede on your behalf:

I can find lots of scripture to support it, but here is one from the top of my head:

"..The prayer of a righteous man availeth much..." (from James 5:16)

But I do understand being indoctrinated in the belief that its wrong to pray to Mary or to the Saints; that is somehow takes away from Jesus. It does not. It makes us closer. God is happy when his beloved are honored! An analogy would be a mother who is happy when her child shows love, honor, and deference to his siblings. The mother does not get jealous because she wants all the love and honor for herself alone, but she is glad. God, also, loves all His children and wants them to love and honor each other, and He is pleased when His children point out His other children's virtues.

So do examine those beliefs that have been handed down to you, and be open to the fact that those that handed them down to you are fallible, and some of the details might be off, and it is okay to seek the truth and test which part is true and which is not.

Jesus in the New Testament is clearly the sole soul Intercessor.

Jesus is far more than Intercessor. He is Lord. He is as He said: The Way, the Truth and the Light. The way we pray to The Blessed Mother is like the way we pray to our friends, or ask our friends, to pray for us. I can give you links to more reading on this question, a question that so many converts have asked, and also I asked, if you want to read more. I will find readable, shorter links. Because you can read many wonderful books, too. If you want, I will send you books.

Praying to Mary is similar to Shirk (idolatry) in Islam,...

No, not at all. What you are doing is repeating accusations made by detractors. Its understandable. I did it too, at least in my own mind, if not outloud. But you are not coming to this conclusion by looking at any Catholics and actually seeing what they are doing. I, also, believed the tales so consistently told about Catholics and their "Mary-worship". But then when I began to read Catholics explaining what they did, and why, and when I met Catholics and saw that this in fact is what they did, I realized: I had believed lies.

Because of that experience and because of my experience with certain people who came into my life and told me how I should think about things, I have learned that its always better to withhold judgment and do my thinking for myself, when I have actual evidence to examine.

Subteigh, Archbishop Fulton Sheen had a much loved television program popular with all. In this age of so many converting to Catholic from Protestant, one of his quotes is much repeated:

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

And I am one of the many who found this is true. The Catholic Church was a Pearl of Great Price for me, worth sacrificing everything for. It is SO worth it. I already loved Jesus, Who had done so much in my life, so, what else could I ever possibly need? But I found that Jesus wanted me to have more, and that the Catholic Church is God's ordinary way of pouring extraordinary graces into our life. That She is exactly what She says She is: the true Church founded by Jesus, and that She holds the fullness of truth.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Hi Subteigh! I keep thinking I should get back to this thread so you gave me a reason.

No, neither Mary nor the Saints in Heaven nor the holy souls in purgatory are dead, but they are alive in Christ.

That idea that its wrong to pray to the dead - or worse - even for the dead, is a Protestant idea. As a Protestant, I can tell you that we never prayed for the dead - (prayers for the dead are markedly absent at a Protestant funeral!). I had been taught consistently - it was wrong or least certainly useless to pray for the dead (useless according to Protestant belief, their fate had only[I] two options: Heaven or Hell, both of those options being eternally forever (Catholics do believe that of those two options) having been already decided, so, they reason that there was nothing you can do for them now. You can imagine how hard it would be to have that as your belief when you have lost a dearly loved one whom you know was possibly or probably hostile to God to the end.

But as a Protestant I had a profound spiritual experience that made me absolutely positive that God did not disapprove - He even encouraged - some manner of praying for the dead. I'll share that story if someone is interested.

Later I became Catholic and was restored to the books of Holy Scripture that Martin Luther rejected because they challenged his own ideas, including Maccabees (which has the ONLY scripture reference to the origin of Hanukkah!) which makes it undeniably clear:

"It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." - 2 Maccabees 12:46

2 Maccabees is not a part of the Hebrew Bible.

It quite clearly contradicts Deuteronomy 18:9-13 which says:

9 “When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.

Jesus in the New Testament also makes it clear that the dead cannot intercede on behalf of the living:

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Here two scriptures that make it clear that the dead in Christ are not dead, but alive:

"Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" -John 11:25,26

The bible is clear that the dead rise up on the day of judgement, not before. It is the spirit that never dies, not the body. Corinthians 15:12-19 states that for those who have died, it as though they are sleeping (i.e. until the day of judgement):

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

"After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus." - Matthew 17:1-3

[note, above, that Moses had died over 1000 years earlier and Elijah was taken up to Heaven ("raptured"?)nearly 1000 years before they were seen here talking to Jesus].

The incident is known as the Transfiguration of Christ, not the Resurrection of Moses. It was a vision. The Old Testament is clear that Moses died and was buried in a place only god knew, and that Elijah is living in heaven.

As to Mary's title "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" - well, He overshadowed her, and He impregnated her. It is a Spouse that impregnates (the Holy Spirit does not behave like some cad). It is difficult to write this and not go off in tangents; its such an interesting topic! I will get too wordy explaining what makes it so true to me, and there so many who have explained this beautifully and better. Here is one that looks good, and not too long: http://www.marytruth.ca/MarySpouseHolySpirit.htm (I remember that Fr. William G. Most's writings were what helped me understand so much about Mary, when I had your questions, like, about her her amazing titles, like Spouse of the Holy Spirit. But I cannot find a short article on this topic by Fr. Most right now, online.)

The apostles and the first Christians held Mary in highest honor. And of course - they had the example of Jesus, who followed the Ten Commandments perfectly, including perfectly honoring His mother. This page http://www.roman-catholic-saints.com...s-of-mary.html tells how Mary, while still on earth, appeared to the Apostle James when he was discouraged.

It is the story of the fist known appearance of Mary. I am sure you are aware there have been so many! Sure there are fakes and imitators, but people really aren't that foolish. Like our Lady of the Pillar still being venerated these near 2000 years, veneration of Mary in her appearances is never going to go away because its REAL and miraculous. My favorites include Our Lady of Guadeloupe (and that miraculous image, painted by angels in 1531, has required today's science to prove how truly miraculous it is) and Our Lady of Fatima - witnessed by communist newspaper reporters and a crowd of tens and tens of thousands who came in dense rain and mud - because the miracle was foretold for that day. The historian William T. Walsh's account of Our Lady of Fatima is one I will never, never forget. What a rich, rich story! It is forever in my heart.

Martin Luther himself venerated her as Mary, Queen of Heaven, and taught that The Blessed Mother was, by grace, always sinless, due to the grace of her Immaculate Conception. It is only as Luther's new religion splintered off into more and more dis-unified churches that Mary's role has been depleted, in most Protestant circles, essentially to that of just a woman that God "used" to get Jesus here for us - and then He was "done" with her, apparently.

Before that, Marys place of honor was always acknowledged. One of her titles, "Cause of Our Salvation" can be explained by these words of St. Irenaeus (b.130 A.D.!) :

The belief that Mary was born sinless comes from an ad hoc rationalisation that Mary had to have been born sinless, contrary to what the bible says about every human inheriting sin. Even in the New Testament in Romans it says clearly that "All people have sinned, they have fallen short of God's glory."

It is rather insulting that you have to bend over backwards to demonstrate that Mary was exemplary, coming from a tradition that teaches that all humans are inherently bad, and that god chose someone flawless...that he made...to bear his son. The bible says absolutely nothing about Mary being born without sin. The "full of grace" part simply means that Mary has been blessed by god to bear her saviour. Without Jesus, she would have ended up in hell.

St. Irenaeus, in his famous Against Heresies (bet. 180-199) wrote:

". . . so also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith."


I can find lots of scripture to support it, but here is one from the top of my head:

"..The prayer of a righteous man availeth much..." (from James 5:16)

again, not from the early canon. The canonical bible generally emphasises that the identity or importance of the sinner is irrelevant, it is only what is in their heart that is significant. In addition, the "prayer of a righteous man" in no way legitimises praying for dead people to intercede on your behalf. A dead person isn't especially righteous either.

But I do understand being indoctrinated in the belief that its wrong to pray to Mary or to the Saints; that is somehow takes away from Jesus. It does not. It makes us closer. God is happy when his beloved are honored! An analogy would be a mother who is happy when her child shows love, honor, and deference to his siblings. The mother does not get jealous because she wants all the love and honor for herself alone, but she is glad. God, also, loves all His children and wants them to love and honor each other, and He is pleased when His children point out His other children's virtues.

So do examine those beliefs that have been handed down to you, and be open to the fact that those that handed them down to you are fallible, and some of the details might be off, and it is okay to seek the truth and test which part is true and which is not.

Jesus is far more than Intercessor. He is Lord. He is as He said: The Way, the Truth and the Light. The way we pray to The Blessed Mother is like the way we pray to our friends, or ask our friends, to pray for us. I can give you links to more reading on this question, a question that so many converts have asked, and also I asked, if you want to read more. I will find readable, shorter links. Because you can read many wonderful books, too. If you want, I will send you books.

I didn't say that Christians "only" consider Jesus an Intercessor...I was merely pointing out that Jesus considered himself THE sole and only Intercessor. Asking friends to pray for you is scriptural, as long as they are not dead and as long as you are not praying to the dead.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Subteigh, Archbishop Fulton Sheen had a much loved television program popular with all. In this age of so many converting to Catholic from Protestant, one of his quotes is much repeated:

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

And I am one of the many who found this is true. The Catholic Church was a Pearl of Great Price for me, worth sacrificing everything for. It is SO worth it. I already loved Jesus, Who had done so much in my life, so, what else could I ever possibly need? But I found that Jesus wanted me to have more, and that the Catholic Church is God's ordinary way of pouring extraordinary graces into our life. That She is exactly what She says She is: the true Church founded by Jesus, and that She holds the fullness of truth.

The Catholic Church at the very least propagates the belief that humans are inherently flawed and that good people deserve eternal damnation. Catholics may wish to be well-meaning, but their ideology is fundamentally evil. You don't need to go into the fineries of Scripture to know you are completely justified in hating the Church.

[xerx]

i like pope francis.

[Whoobie77]

Why do Catholics say Hail Marys? I was taught that this was akin to praying to an idol and Christians are only to pray to God.

What I was taught was, it was like putting your prayer on a silver platter before it would be presented to God. Of course, God will listen to your prayers, but if his own mother, who is without sin intercedes...he will find it more pleasing.

But also God's love is infinite, and for each of us at the level where he knows the number of hairs on our head, so how does this work? Well, to be religious you usually have to be somewhat at home with mystery.

So you did body-building instead?

i know this wasn't directed at me but, since becoming a Catholic that lapses in and out of faith, the ingrained need for regular, purifying ritual is part of the appeal of bodybuilding to me

[Eliza Thomason]

2 Maccabees is not a part of the Hebrew Bible..

Not now. It was in Jesus' Bible, though! In the first century, as Christianity grew, many Jews converted to Our Lord, and the Pharisees in those days found those books of their Sacred Scripture to now be a threat, as they so clearly prophesied Jesus, and so many of their number were using those holy words to support their conversion to Christ. So, like Luther so many years later, the Pharisees used their position to remove the books that had always been in their sacred canon, that were in such opposition to their own beliefs. Just like Luther, they "changed" what is Holy Scripture. Here is a 4 minute video with a more detailed explanation of what I just said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQEu6p9f9Nc
And here is a longer, fuller written version on the same topic: http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm

It quite clearly contradicts Deuteronomy 18:9-13 which says: "9 “When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.

Context?? It is ignorant to choose a little phrase cut from a sentence of scripture and base your idea on it while ignoring context of that phrase! This is about witchcraft! Even the most ignorant of Catholic detractors don't call asking for the dead in Christ for their prayers witchcraft. And I don't think you are ignorant. So it makes me wonder if you really want to know these things, or you just like to ague, or, just come off as being right, so you can "win". So I wonder if this is a waste of time. As a matter of fact, you did once admit that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Life is too short for this! I do not want to spend my time with you for such silliness. If you really care to share and learn, and you really want to arrive at truth, then sure, its worth the time for me to explain what I believe and what Catholics actually teach.

Jesus in the New Testament also makes it clear that the dead cannot intercede on behalf of the living: [re: story: The rich man, Abraham, Lazarus]

Scripture is for contemplating, not flinging at people. Did it even occur to you that the rich man's residence in Hades is in fact Hell? Because there is no leaving there. The point I get from it is that some people choose against God and no miracle or special message is going to convince them otherwise because they, with much determination habitually choose to ignore every call God gives them. We are created with free will and some will choose against God to the very end. Its choice. God rarely, if ever, violates our free will.

We Catholics do not pray to the dead in hell. We ask our brothers and sisters in Christ who are in the beatific vision for their prayers. I mean, in case you care about what we actually do, and are not just aiming to ignorantly accuse.

Which is just what the Pharisees did! And its interesting that the name Lazarus is chosen for that parable above, when Jesus was to soon do that astounding miracle of raising his friend Lazarus from the dead, after he rotted. And he raised Lazarus in front of the Pharisees, who witnessed the miracle and STILL didn't believe!

Subteigh, there is so much more to scripture than pulling out verses just for flinging at people.

The bible is clear that the dead rise up on the day of judgement, not before. It is the spirit that never dies, not the body. Corinthians 15:12-19 states that for those who have died, it as though they are sleeping (i.e. until the day of judgement):

No, that is not what we Catholics believe and its not what most of your Protestant brothers and sisters believe, either. Most share with us a profession of the Nicene Creed. Yes, our spirits will never die; they will live for all eternity, and when we die our spirits immediately move on to where we will be for eternity - either instantly to hell or Heaven (or Heaven-bound). And our bodies return here to the dust. But that dust, for all of us, is to be raised and reassembled in an instant, on the last day, at the end of the earth - Judgement Day. Yes, these bodies, that we are walking around in right now, and your ancestors' rotting bodies in their graves, and those ashes of the dead flung into the ocean, will be raised incorruptible on the last day, like Jesus', and so will live forever with our spirits, wherever they may be.. And we all pray for those on earth that it be in the joy of Heaven, for all but the very most insistent that they stay far from God. Yes. Its in Isaiah, and also 1 Corinthians 15:52:

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

Its pretty amazing to contemplate it. I remember the first time I did. May you be blessed as you contemplate it.

The incident is known as the Transfiguration of Christ, not the Resurrection of Moses. It was a vision. The Old Testament is clear that Moses died and was buried in a place only god knew, and that Elijah is living in heaven.

Yes, very good, that's the Transfiguration. It was an actual event, not a dream. Moses and Elijah came and were there with Jesus. Now we know Moses died, but Elijah's body was taken up to Heaven in a chariot, so, his wasn't rotting here anywhere on earth, and since things don't rot in Heaven, we suppose he never rotted.

As to Moses' dying and his body buried somewhere secret - could God not have raised Moses' body and joined it with Moses' spirit for that great moment? Also bodies of the dead were raised and left their tombs and ran about town after the death of Jesus for a short period, terrorizing the guilty. Its not what God normally does. But we know sometimes God does things that He does not normally do. Usually for a special occasion and for a good reason.

But one can read many, many great writings on the event of the Transfiguration that have a lot more to offer than your thoughts and mine.

The belief that Mary was born sinless comes from an ad hoc rationalisation

Nope. It comes from the Church, the true Church, that, as scripture admonishes Christians to do in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, has truly stood firm and held fast to the teachings we passed on to her, whether by word of mouth or by letter. The reason the Church has been able to do, even though God entrusted its supervision run here on earth to fallible people, is truly evidence of the power of God, and of the promise of Jesus, who He gave His Church the Holy Spirit and promising that He would never leave it.

that Mary had to have been born sinless, contrary to what the bible says about every human inheriting sin. Even in the New Testament in Romans it says clearly that "All people have sinned, they have fallen short of God's glory."

Eve was sinless, too, until her great sin. Mary, whom God intended to be teh New Eve, in his plan of Salvation, also came into the world sinless - like the first Eve. As Eve's sin enslaved us all, Mary undid Eve's sin for all of us with her yes. God prepared her for this mission by filling her with grace. How can you sin when you are FULL of grace? Even your predecessor Martin Luther believed this! It is only after Luther's religion has divided and divided and mans new ideas have added and changed the teachings still protected by the Holy Spirit that the truth has been so narrowed that the glories of Mary can be dismissed by a part of a sentence in a Bible verse. I understand you have been inundated by this mis-teaching her in our time on the truth about Mary. I think its because of the "protest" still inherent in Protestantism. Sometimes when one "protests too much" its cause to look a little closer...

Yes, God normally does not break His laws, like the laws of nature. But, sometimes He does, doesn't He? And its always significant moment when He does.

It is rather insulting that you have to bend over backwards to demonstrate that Mary was exemplary,

? Why is it offensive to consider that God chose an exemplary person to be supply the humanity for His Son?

coming from a tradition that teaches that all humans are inherently bad,

No, you are so wrong on this. You speak of the doctrine of Total Depravity, and that is NOT a Catholic doctrine, in fact its considered by us to be error and heresy. Its basically Calvinism, but Calvin's erroneous doctrine of Total Depravity has infected many Protestant faiths, too, to one degree of another. (Many times ones learning on this is dependent on how wise and godly one's pastor is!).

No, Catholics believe we all have a tendency to want to sin (born with Original Sin), but we remain, as scripture tells us, essentially good in the eyes of God. Because He made us and all of creation, and when He was done He said, "It is good." God is eternal, and what He says is forever, so, He'll never change His mind on that. The truth is, God created us good.

and that God chose someone flawless...that he made...to bear his son.

Mary: sole Tabernacle of our Lord for nine months.

When you read in Exodus of God's made for the Tabernacle holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments, a pot of manna, and Aaron's staff you cannot help but be struck by the extent of the picky detail in the matter. The statues God ordered carved of holy angels and earthy things to adorn the Holy Tabernacle had to be made just so, and it had to be so pure - made of pure gold. And there were many rules for how you even approached the Holy of Holies - or you could be struck dead!

So for Catholics and other Christians all these centuries, its never been unusual to consider that the God, who was so choosy about where the tablets, a staff and a cup of manna were to be placed, might be even choosier when it came to the Holy Tabernacle for his Only Begotton Son...

The Bible says absolutely nothing about Mary being born without sin.

Well, "the Bible doesn't say" doesn't say so much, like you think it does.

I can tell you that nowhere in the Bible does it say that everything in this book is everything you need to know to be Christian. No. So that's not an argument. That's your extra-Biblical assumption. Its not mine, and its not Catholic.

Jesus did not come back after his resurrection to give His apostles a book. He came back to start a Church with his Apostles. The Church, much later, through its the successors of those Apostles: the Pope and Bishops, gave us the Bible. And nowhere in that Bible does it say that the only things we need to know are in that book!

But Scripture is holy and sacred, and nothing the Church ever teaches contradicts scripture.

So you could argue about a Catholic belief seeming to be against scripture (but investigate and you will see that nothing will hold water!), but simply saying its not described in scripture specifically enough is really meaningless.

The "full of grace" part simply means that Mary has been blessed by god to bear her saviour.

No, Subteigh. That's what it means to you, personally. But that's not what it means. Those select and holy words of the angel, who came straight from the throne of God to announce the greatest news mankind will ever hear, has a whole lot more meaning than that.

Without Jesus, she would have ended up in hell.

Well, I can only say for certain that its all-true and it is a Catholic teaching that Our Blessed Mother, just like the rest of us, is saved by Jesus. Saved by grace, and not by her own good works (no matter how glorious!).

again, not from the early canon.

Don't you think its foolish to ignore theology of venerable first century Christians and adhere instead to newer beliefs of individuals of much more recent centuries?

The canonical Bible generally emphasizes that the identity or importance of the sinner is irrelevant, it is only what is in their heart that is significant.

That's not what I get. The heart and the whole person matters.

[/QUOTE] In addition, the "prayer of a righteous man" in no way legitimises praying for dead people to intercede on your behalf. A dead person isn't especially righteous either. [/QUOTE] Its your belief, not mine, that the dead in Christ just disappear and are completely separated from us on earth. I believe with the Catholic Church that the dead in Christ are still alive, alive in Christ, and are still members of the living Church. They pray for us and care what we do in our day-to-day lives. They care because God cares, and they, who are with Him, care about what God cares about. I know this because I have received miraculous answers to prayers to Saints for their intercession, and so have countless others.

I didn't say that Christians "only" consider Jesus an Intercessor...I was merely pointing out that Jesus considered himself THE sole and only Intercessor. Asking friends to pray for you is scriptural, as long as they are not dead and as long as you are not praying to the dead.

Except that's your own extra-biblical belief. Here you have taken a few Bible verses and twisted them to say what you just said here, but nothing in scripture says what you say here - that we are essentially not supposed to have anything to do with a person at all after they die. Its your own adopted post-Luther belief. None of the scriptures you quoted is in the context of what you just said. They have completely different contexts from your belief. So, yes, I see your conclusion. But I don't buy it.

But I am curious. You do not ask the dead for their prayers - we've got that down real good now - but I want to know: do you offer your prayers for the dead?

(from your other post):

The Catholic Church at the very least propagates the belief that humans are inherently flawed and that good people deserve eternal damnation.

Well, no, that's not right, as I explained above (you got Calvins Total Depravity theory mixed up in there). There can be no sin in Heaven, and its a struggle for us not to sin and we need help to be clear of sin, we need help to get there. Firs we need to atone for our sins - and eh only acceptable atonement is Jesus' death on the Cross. Then we need to clean ourselves up. Its our sin and sinful desires that aren't welcome in Heaven. That's not the same as the Total Depravity summary you accuse Catholics of adhering to here. So you see it is as Bishop Sheen said. You are a victim of mis-information.,

Catholics may wish to be well-meaning, but their ideology is fundamentally evil. You don't need to go into the fineries of Scripture to know you are completely justified in hating the Church.

Wow, Subteigh. Why would you want to misjudge Catholics? I know I never wanted to do that. I wanted to stay away from Catholics because I was sure they were all mixed-up and wrong on most things, but I never wanted to misjudge them, so I was satisfied to just keep my distance.

God is just, and He says He will judge us by the very measuring stick we use to judge others. So we'd best all use a very short stick.

Fundamentally evil?? What in the heck are you thinking?

[Eliza Thomason]

What I was taught was, it was like putting your prayer on a silver platter before it would be presented to God. Of course, God will listen to your prayers, but if his own mother, who is without sin intercedes...he will find it more pleasing.

But also God's love is infinite, and for each of us at the level where he knows the number of hairs on our head, so how does this work? Well, to be religious you usually have to be somewhat at home with mystery.

Wow, good thoughts here.

I know this wasn't directed at me but, since becoming a Catholic that lapses in and out of faith, the ingrained need for regular, purifying ritual is part of the appeal of bodybuilding to me

That's interesting. My husband also has always liked the ritual, so much so that he understands it better than me, very thoroughly, and he has prayed beautiful prayers of the Church faithfully, daily, for years. I never was drawn to ritual, but now I find that it really speaks to some part inside of me; really pulls me right into that place with God.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Not now. It was in Jesus' Bible, though! In the first century, as Christianity grew, many Jews converted to Our Lord, and the Pharisees in those days found those books of their Sacred Scripture to now be a threat, as they so clearly prophesied Jesus, and so many of their number were using those holy words to support their conversion to Christ. So, like Luther so many years later, the Pharisees used their position to remove the books that had always been in their sacred canon, that were in such opposition to their own beliefs. Just like Luther, they "changed" what is Holy Scripture. Here is a 4 minute video with a more detailed explanation of what I just said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQEu6p9f9Nc
And here is a longer, fuller written version on the same topic: http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm

Not true. The book wasn't in the core of the New Testament in the earliest centuries of the church: it was considered supplementary at best. The Catholics adopted it formally later.

Context?? It is ignorant to choose a little phrase cut from a sentence of scripture and base your idea on it while ignoring context of that phrase! This is about witchcraft! Even the most ignorant of Catholic detractors don't call asking for the dead in Christ for their prayers witchcraft. And I don't think you are ignorant. So it makes me wonder if you really want to know these things, or you just like to ague, or, just come off as being right, so you can "win". So I wonder if this is a waste of time. As a matter of fact, you did once admit that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

The full context is that talking to the dead is always wrong. In the context of the Old Testament, only god is to be communicated to via the aid of priests carrying out sacrifices in the Temple. This was where god regularly made his presence known. Later, in 1 Samuel 28 Saul is criticised with disturbing dead...by the dead spirit of Samuel, the very person he called upon. The spirit of Samuel points out that calling upon the dead is against god's law. It is sorcery.

Life is too short for this! I do not want to spend my time with you for such silliness. If you really care to share and learn, and you really want to arrive at truth, then sure, its worth the time for me to explain what I believe and what Catholics actually teach.

Strange attitude for someone who believe in the immortality of the soul to have.

Scripture is for contemplating, not flinging at people. Did it even occur to you that the rich man's residence in Hades is in fact Hell? Because there is no leaving there. The point I get from it is that some people choose against God and no miracle or special message is going to convince them otherwise because they, with much determination habitually choose to ignore every call God gives them. We are created with free will and some will choose against God to the very end. Its choice. God rarely, if ever, violates our free will.

Irrelevant if it was hell: surely the point of praying for a dead person if anything is precisely because you are concerned where they will end up. In addition, I used the story to illustrate that Jesus clearly thought there was no communication between the living and the dead, regardless of whether they were in hell or in heaven, or merely in the ground rotting.

Job 14
“For there is hope for a tree,
If it is cut down, that it will sprout again,
And that its tender shoots will not cease.
8
Though its root may grow old in the earth,
And its stump may die in the ground,
9
Yet at the scent of water it will bud
And bring forth branches like a plant.
10
But man dies and is laid away;
Indeed he breathes his last
And where is he?
11
As water disappears from the sea,
And a river becomes parched and dries up,
12
So man lies down and does not rise.
Till the heavens are no more,
They will not awake
Nor be roused from their sleep.

John 11
11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.”

12 Then His disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.” 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.

14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. 15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless let us go to him.”

We Catholics do not pray to the dead in hell. We ask our brothers and sisters in Christ who are in the beatific vision for their prayers. I mean, in case you care about what we actually do, and are not just aiming to ignorantly accuse.

Which is just what the Pharisees did! And its interesting that the name Lazarus is chosen for that parable above, when Jesus was to soon do that astounding miracle of raising his friend Lazarus from the dead, after he rotted. And he raised Lazarus in front of the Pharisees, who witnessed the miracle and STILL didn't believe!

You said that Catholics pray to the dead. The bible is clear that only god knows if someone is to go to heaven or to hell. You are only supposed to pray for those who grieve, not for the dead.

Again, Jesus is recorded in the bible as saying "“I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Jesus is the Intercessor, Saviour, and Resurrector in Christianity...you mention Jesus in the Lazarus case, but complete miss the point about how I've been saying in Christianity that only Jesus could have risen Lazarus from the dead.

Subteigh, there is so much more to scripture than pulling out verses just for flinging at people.

No, that is not what we Catholics believe and its not what most of your Protestant brothers and sisters believe, either. Most share with us a profession of the Nicene Creed. Yes, our spirits will never die; they will live for all eternity, and when we die our spirits immediately move on to where we will be for eternity - either instantly to hell or Heaven (or Heaven-bound). And our bodies return here to the dust. But that dust, for all of us, is to be raised and reassembled in an instant, on the last day, at the end of the earth - Judgement Day. Yes, these bodies, that we are walking around in right now, and your ancestors' rotting bodies in their graves, and those ashes of the dead flung into the ocean, will be raised incorruptible on the last day, like Jesus', and so will live forever with our spirits, wherever they may be.. And we all pray for those on earth that it be in the joy of Heaven, for all but the very most insistent that they stay far from God. Yes. Its in Isaiah, and also 1 Corinthians 15:52:

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

Its pretty amazing to contemplate it. I remember the first time I did. May you be blessed as you contemplate it.

Judgement Day has not actually happened yet. You can tell this because for example because the last trumpet happens after The Rapture, and most of the events of Revelations...which haven't happened yet.

I've quoted many verses including from Jesus where the dead are described as asleep until Judgement Day. This is line with traditional Jewish doctrine.

Jesus DID say to someone on the Cross that "Today you will be with me in Paradise", but this emphasises the significance of the sleeping state: a person dies and as they experience it, they are immediately at the day of judgement. Consider also 2 Peter 3:1-9:

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us,[a] the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Yes, very good, that's the Transfiguration. It was an actual event, not a dream. Moses and Elijah came and were there with Jesus. Now we know Moses died, but Elijah's body was taken up to Heaven in a chariot, so, his wasn't rotting here anywhere on earth, and since things don't rot in Heaven, we suppose he never rotted.

As to Moses' dying and his body buried somewhere secret - could God not have raised Moses' body and joined it with Moses' spirit for that great moment? Also bodies of the dead were raised and left their tombs and ran about town after the death of Jesus for a short period, terrorizing the guilty. Its not what God normally does. But we know sometimes God does things that He does not normally do. Usually for a special occasion and for a good reason.

But one can read many, many great writings on the event of the Transfiguration that have a lot more to offer than your thoughts and mine.

The bible doesn't say it was a dream: it was a vision. I dare say a supernatural being such as god could have done that to Moses, but it would have been contrary to Moses being a sinner who remains dead until judgement day. In the event of Jesus' resurrection, it was probably only suppose to be applicable to local saints that Jesus knew personally.

Nope. It comes from the Church, the true Church, that, as scripture admonishes Christians to do in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, has truly stood firm and held fast to the teachings we passed on to her, whether by word of mouth or by letter. The reason the Church has been able to do, even though God entrusted its supervision run here on earth to fallible people, is truly evidence of the power of God, and of the promise of Jesus, who He gave His Church the Holy Spirit and promising that He would never leave it.

Again, the bible doesn't say any of these things about Mary.

I think by the true church you mean the Catholics, which rather ignores all the tens of thousands of other sects, including ones that are just as old as the Catholics, such as the Orthodox and the Oriental churches. It also ignores churches that predate even these, such as the one set up by James, brother of Jesus, before they were slaughtered by our spiritual ancestors.

Eve was sinless, too, until her great sin. Mary, whom God intended to be teh New Eve, in his plan of Salvation, also came into the world sinless - like the first Eve. As Eve's sin enslaved us all, Mary undid Eve's sin for all of us with her yes. God prepared her for this mission by filling her with grace. How can you sin when you are FULL of grace? Even your predecessor Martin Luther believed this! It is only after Luther's religion has divided and divided and mans new ideas have added and changed the teachings still protected by the Holy Spirit that the truth has been so narrowed that the glories of Mary can be dismissed by a part of a sentence in a Bible verse. I understand you have been inundated by this mis-teaching her in our time on the truth about Mary. I think its because of the "protest" still inherent in Protestantism. Sometimes when one "protests too much" its cause to look a little closer...

Yes, God normally does not break His laws, like the laws of nature. But, sometimes He does, doesn't He? And its always significant moment when He does.

There is nothing in the bible that states that god intended Mary to be a new Eve. You seem to be venerating her in a way that you should only have for Christ. You are not supposed to have false idols, whether spiritual or wooden.

Look, when Mary was told she was "full of grace", this was at one moment in time, the time when she had been told the news that god had chosen her to give birth to her Messiah. This does not mean that Mary was always full of grace: it also does not mean that god is not with those who sin: if this was true, god would be with no one, as all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is nothing scriptural that says that something greater can come from something less: indeed, even with you saying that Mary was sinless, you still believe she was no match for Jesus. In addition, remember that Nathanael infamously said “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”, such was its low reputation.

btw, Luther may be a pre-deceasor of mine, but I'm not actually Protestant, and if I was, I'd be one of the millions who'd consider him an awful zealot and anti-Semite, amongst other things.

? Why is it offensive to consider that God chose an exemplary person to be supply the humanity for His Son?

I already explained this. Because Christianity, at least your version of it, treats humans as inherently evil and needing of outside help. It doesn't see the natural good in people, except as extensions of god's own supposed goodness. If this wasn't the case, then Christianity would reward based on those who do good without reward, even if they do not believe in god: it wouldn't reward those who only sinned all their lives before giving a deathbed confession. The Catholic praise for Mary is not really praise for Mary at all: it is backhanded praise for god for supposedly making her that way. And for a supernatural being to only be able to make a handful (at best) of humans sinless out of billions shows god to be rather incompetent, and not deserving of any praise either.

No, you are so wrong on this. You speak of the doctrine of Total Depravity, and that is NOT a Catholic doctrine, in fact its considered by us to be error and heresy. Its basically Calvinism, but Calvin's erroneous doctrine of Total Depravity has infected many Protestant faiths, too, to one degree of another. (Many times ones learning on this is dependent on how wise and godly one's pastor is!).

No, Catholics believe we all have a tendency to want to sin (born with Original Sin), but we remain, as scripture tells us, essentially good in the eyes of God. Because He made us and all of creation, and when He was done He said, "It is good." God is eternal, and what He says is forever, so, He'll never change His mind on that. The truth is, God created us good.

If I am wrong: answer this: if a person does not believe in god, where do they go on judgement day? If a person was inherently good, they wouldn't need god's assistance, and the majority (if not all) would go to heaven.

Mary: sole Tabernacle of our Lord for nine months.

When you read in Exodus of God's made for the Tabernacle holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments, a pot of manna, and Aaron's staff you cannot help but be struck by the extent of the picky detail in the matter. The statues God ordered carved of holy angels and earthy things to adorn the Holy Tabernacle had to be made just so, and it had to be so pure - made of pure gold. And there were many rules for how you even approached the Holy of Holies - or you could be struck dead!

So for Catholics and other Christians all these centuries, its never been unusual to consider that the God, who was so choosy about where the tablets, a staff and a cup of manna were to be placed, might be even choosier when it came to the Holy Tabernacle for his Only Begotton Son...

You say that, but the bible also says that god allowed himself to be placed in a manger, to dwell amongst humans for thirty years, and to be crucified, amongst other things. Jesus considered such laws to be ceremonial laws, which he abolished as he fulfilled various prophecies. You can tell this because Jesus made it perfectly clear that the only way of obtaining Salvation was through him, not through temples, priests, slaughtered lambs and so on (Jesus replaced all those things with himself).

Well, "the Bible doesn't say" doesn't say so much, like you think it does.

I can tell you that nowhere in the Bible does it say that everything in this book is everything you need to know to be Christian. No. So that's not an argument. That's your extra-Biblical assumption. Its not mine, and its not Catholic.

Jesus did not come back after his resurrection to give His apostles a book. He came back to start a Church with his Apostles. The Church, much later, through its the successors of those Apostles: the Pope and Bishops, gave us the Bible. And nowhere in that Bible does it say that the only things we need to know are in that book!

But Scripture is holy and sacred, and nothing the Church ever teaches contradicts scripture.

So you could argue about a Catholic belief seeming to be against scripture (but investigate and you will see that nothing will hold water!), but simply saying its not described in scripture specifically enough is really meaningless.

Not quite true. Jesus and the early apostles in the New Testament were quite clear that you didn't even need the books to be saved: you just need to follow the commandments and follow Him.

Mark 10
17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”

18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”[c]

20 And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.”

21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”

22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Romans 10:9-10
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

We talked about the papacy before I think, but that is not even scriptural. The bedrock of the church is Jesus himself, not Simon.

Pslam 18:31"And who is a rock, except our God?"

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 7:24-25 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock."[/quote]

Don't you think its foolish to ignore theology of venerable first century Christians and adhere instead to newer beliefs of individuals of much more recent centuries?

Actually, that's my point. The book of James WASN'T in the early canon, it was either considered heretical or an appendage at best for the first 4 centuries A.D. or so. This is apart from the fact it isn't known who actually wrote it, and that there is no evidence it was written in the first century. It isn't as problematic theologically as other such books though.

That's not what I get. The heart and the whole person matters.

In addition, the "prayer of a righteous man" in no way legitimises praying for dead people to intercede on your behalf. A dead person isn't especially righteous either. [/QUOTE] Its your belief, not mine, that the dead in Christ just disappear and are completely separated from us on earth. I believe with the Catholic Church that the dead in Christ are still alive, alive in Christ, and are still members of the living Church. They pray for us and care what we do in our day-to-day lives. They care because God cares, and they, who are with Him, care about what God cares about. I know this because I have received miraculous answers to prayers to Saints for their intercession, and so have countless others.[/quote]

Why do you think that a prayer from a saint means more than that of a penitent? Jesus makes it clear that all have sinned, and it is not who you are that counts in such things (consider the poor widow and the mite): it is the intent that matters.

Except that's your own extra-biblical belief. Here you have taken a few Bible verses and twisted them to say what you just said here, but nothing in scripture says what you say here - that we are essentially not supposed to have anything to do with a person at all after they die. Its your own adopted post-Luther belief. None of the scriptures you quoted is in the context of what you just said. They have completely different contexts from your belief. So, yes, I see your conclusion. But I don't buy it.

But I am curious. You do not ask the dead for their prayers - we've got that down real good now - but I want to know: do you offer your prayers for the dead?

Conversely, the bible has no instance of a patriarch or apostle praying for the dead, and has many instances of praying for the souls of those who are still living. The reason given is that once you die, you are judged based on the life you have lived. Nothing changes that. Praying for the souls of the living however is still all to play for, and this is why it is emphasised. No, I don't pray for the dead.

(from your other post):
Well, no, that's not right, as I explained above (you got Calvins Total Depravity theory mixed up in there). There can be no sin in Heaven, and its a struggle for us not to sin and we need help to be clear of sin, we need help to get there. Firs we need to atone for our sins - and eh only acceptable atonement is Jesus' death on the Cross. Then we need to clean ourselves up. Its our sin and sinful desires that aren't welcome in Heaven. That's not the same as the Total Depravity summary you accuse Catholics of adhering to here. So you see it is as Bishop Sheen said. You are a victim of mis-information.,

If people are inherently good as you claim, it would not be a struggle to be good, especially when god is so much more powerful than the devil. You also seem to think that not believing in god is a sin, no matter how good a person is. A truly good person is someone who does what they do for others with what little with have, and with no expectation of reward.

Wow, Subteigh. Why would you want to misjudge Catholics? I know I never wanted to do that. I wanted to stay away from Catholics because I was sure they were all mixed-up and wrong on most things, but I never wanted to misjudge them, so I was satisfied to just keep my distance.

God is just, and He says He will judge us by the very measuring stick we use to judge others. So we'd best all use a very short stick.

Fundamentally evil?? What in the heck are you thinking?

If god was just, he would not eternally damn people for alleged crimes they committed in their short lifespan. He would also judged himself by the same standard he judges others: a supernatural being who actively or passively causes suffering would be the greatest evil.

In addition, consider for example that Jesus said "the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”: not only is this self-obsessed considering that Jesus believed there would be no poor people in heaven, and that he would be there for all eternity, the UN has cut extreme poverty worldwide by half in 20 years between 1990 and 2010, five years ahead of schedule, something that the Church with its negative doctrine and its $ billions did not achieve in 2000 years. The UN would like to abolish extreme poverty comfortably within this century.

[glam]

In addition, consider for example that Jesus said "the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”: not only is this self-obsessed considering that Jesus believed there would be no poor people in heaven, and that he would be there for all eternity, the UN has cut extreme poverty worldwide by half in 20 years between 1990 and 2010, five years ahead of schedule, something that the Church with its negative doctrine and its $ billions did not achieve in 2000 years. The UN would like to abolish extreme poverty comfortably within this century.

umm sidenote here, but i just want to say thank you for pointing this out about the positive influence that UN initiatives have had on the world - too often i hear people say the UN "doesn't do anything" and is a waste of money, which really irks me (to be sure the UN has its share of failures & mistakes as well, and these often end up overshadowing the good)

[malna]

"'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' So he is the God of the living, not the dead."

Personally, I do believe in reading the Bible through one's life experiences since I view It as a live dialogue between God and human. So, here's my dime.
Soon after my grandfather died - my mum's dad - me and my mum reconciled at last after many years of serious conflicts which had included legal procedure. More than that, not only did we make a decision to bury the hatchet, we suddenly started to get on really well and feel comfortable in each other's company - something I deemed absolutely impossible, at least since after my teenage years; our characters just clashed badly and we tended to bring the worst out of one another. So to me the change was huge and like a miracle. My mum has also regained her faith. Years have passed but we still pray together for granddad in masses for his soul. "By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?"

That being said, I don't think the differences between Christians are that important; I believe the God hears us all out and is not discouraged if we're less than 'accurate' in our thinking of things beyond our grasp and in the way we form our prayers.

[Eliza Thomason]

This response is so long its unwieldy. So I divided it into 3 posts. This is Pt. 1 of 3.

Not true. The book wasn't in the core of the New Testament in the earliest centuries of the church: it was considered supplementary at best. The Catholics adopted it formally later..

Its not a New Testament book.

"In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year."

And so it stayed for about 12 centuries, until Martin Luther decided that parts of holy scripture conflicted with his own ideas. How could this be that God let so many Christians be wrong about this for so long? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping?

The above quote is from the link I gave you, above - - http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm Its not a long read. You should take a look at it. Scripture references to the Protestant's missing books have to make you think. Also that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah as a holy feast day.

Also to confirm that Jesus had those books in His Holy Scripture, there is this (from that link): "It’s important also to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls included the book of Tobit and the book of Sirach, proving that the people back then thought them canonical, because they were found with the book of Isaiah and other Old Testament books. "

I do not know how that can not be convincing.

And finally there is this other point, which some might consider an unimportant aside, but it seemed kind of glaring to me, so when the above linked mentioned it, it really confirmed my own impression:

"And an interesting numerology coincidence occurs here as well. In the bible, the number 7 denotes perfection (God rested on the 7th day, 7 spirits that minister to God, 7 sacraments), and the number 3 represents the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the number 6 represents imperfection (as in 666). Therefore, 73 books sure sounds a lot better than 66 books!"

It really does sound more right. Maybe because it is.

The full context is that talking to the dead is always wrong. In the context of the Old Testament, only God is to be communicated to via the aid of priests carrying out sacrifices in the Temple. This was where God regularly made His presence known. Later, in Saul is criticized with disturbing dead...by the dead spirit of Samuel, the very person he called upon. The spirit of Samuel points out that calling upon the dead is against God's law. It is sorcery.

The point of that story is not the point you are making. In Samuel we see confirmed the truth as stated in Deuteronomy that it is wrong to conjure up a dead person in order to gain hidden knowledge. The Church has always taught clearly in the Catechism that to do this is a grave sin. This is not the same as Catholics being in union with the Saints in Heaven, or praying for the souls of the dead, as did the good Judas of Maccabees. Protestant Christians of good will, who seek to please God, mistakenly broad brush it, like you are doing here. It is an error.

The following quote in blue has scriptural supports for prayers to the dead, and it explains why we Catholics do that. From that same website above, on a different page:

"The saints are not dead, they are alive. Jesus says that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32). Paul says that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, in Hebrews 12:1. Witnesses have to be alive in order to testify on our behalf to the supreme judge.

In Revelation 6:10, we learn that the saints in heaven know what is going on down here on earth.
In Luke 16:24, we learn that dead people in hell can communicate with the very dead Abraham.
In Mark 9:4, the "dead" Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus and communicate with Him regarding his exodus from earth.

People who believe that being dead in the body is also dead in the soul are called atheists, not Christians.

It would be sinful to conjure up a dead person, like Saul did with Samuel (1 Samuel 28:14), in order to gain hidden knowledge (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).
But asking for intercession (1 Timothy 2:1) from live, holy people is very biblical, due to the power they have (James 5:16, 2 Peter 1:4).

Revelation 5:8 and 8:3 plainly state that the saints and angels present our prayers to God in the form of incense. Saints pray alongside of us to Jesus as our intercessors. They do not stand "between" us and God. And they can pray for us when we are asleep, 24/7. "

That is a very important point. You, Subteigh, repeat a common Protestant accusation that Jesus is not being the "only mediator" between God and man if one asks for the assistance of prayers from the saints in Heaven. But you are not understanding the context of the word "mediator". That is explained below, and I think you will agree that it is something that Catholics and Protestants agree on. Only, Protestants extend it, to mean MORE than scripture says it means, and that is their error:

There is indeed one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. And what is He the mediator of?
Paul says in Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 12:24 that Jesus is the mediator of THE NEW COVENANT, not prayer.

Intercession in prayer does not equate to being the mediator of the New Covenant; they are 2 entirely different things.

The saints are equal to the angels, and are His sons, according to Luke 20:35-36.

John 17:20-23 says that the saints are one with God, and that He has given them HIS glory."


So you can see, there are a LOT of Holy Scripture support for Catholic practices. Furthermore, no Catholic practices violate scripture. You can say it does, as you have said - but you realize that people use scripture verses to say all kinds of things. Look how many brands of Protestant faith there all, all based on the Bible, all saying different things are right or not, all using scripture to back it up.

I can assure you that every "Biblical" protest you come up with against Catholicism, you will find there is extremely thorough Biblical support for it! Catholics view scripture as Sacred, and NONE of our beliefs are contrary to it. NONE.

Believe me, as a practicing Evangelical Protestant for many years, I had all those questions! In fact, I explored Catholicism quite sure I would find it was wrong! I did not expect to find so much truth, so many answers! I did not want to convert; I liked being Protestant. But its true - so I did. (And I'm glad! It truly was a pearl of great price for me!, and will always remain so).

One truth I found in my conversion was that Catholics who convert to Protestant don't know what they are leaving. They are ignorant of their faith, due to poor catechesis, or only a weak child's knowledge of it; they never explored their faith as a mature adult. And so the Protestant protests against their faith seem that they must be true.

But its opposite of that with Protestant converts to Catholic. They KNOW why they are becoming Catholic, and they know what they are leaving behind - they know both thoroughly. Only, I would not say leaving behind. All of the converts I know consider their Protestant formation dear and precious, and their coming home to the Catholic Church as a growing up of their faith, not a growing out of. We see it as arriving to the place of the fullness of faith. Our previous understanding of the things of God before was merely incomplete, vs. wrong. And we all know we can still learn much from our Protestant brothers and sisters, or from anyone who is open to God's working in their hearts.

(and often those Catholic converts to Protestant stumble upon the truth of the Catholic faith, and they return home to the Church. They are called "Reverts", and if you Goggle "Catholic Revert" you'll find plenty of stories! Here is one page of people telling their stories: http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/c...tholic-reverts)

I also want to add that the cloud of witnesses - the saints that have gone on before us - would not be sleeping - in order to testify. As far as the sleeping that you mention below, those quotes above should dispel that notion.

I wrote: "Life is too short for this! I do not want to spend my time with you for such silliness. If you really care to share and learn, and you really want to arrive at truth, then sure, its worth the time for me to explain what I believe and what Catholics actually teach." and you wrote:

Strange attitude for someone who believe in the immortality of the soul to have.

Well yes, you are right. Its just that sometimes I am afraid that you just want to argue, you don't want to know. Its just me worrying I am wasting my time. But I will be more patient. My time is worth noting at all compared to a soul.

Irrelevant if it was hell: surely the point of praying for a dead person if anything is precisely because you are concerned where they will end up.

You forgot purgatory. That's the reason for the charitable act of praying for the dead. I will discuss that below.

In addition, I used the story to illustrate that Jesus clearly thought there was no communication between the living and the dead, regardless of whether they were in hell or in heaven, or merely in the ground rotting.

But I do not think that your conclusion about the point of the story was the point of the story. Because if it was true, that point would have to be in agreement with he rest of scripture. You can see from the quotes in blue, above, that it is not in agreement. So, that can't be the point of the story.

I think the Job quote was just Job, understandably miserable, and stating the true fact that death ends life on earth, and you don't come back alive on earth again. (Unless you are one of the very few who are in the right place at the right time - like Lazarus! God makes the laws of nature, but He is not bound by then - He can violate them when He wants!)

Oh - the John quote - "Lazarus sleeps" - when he was dead. I see. Yes, that seems to support your idea of a long, passed-out/comatose, "dead-to-the-world-and-heaven" sleep that you suggest, however, since that idea is in conflict with the other scripture verses, it must be that Jesus meant something else.

You said that Catholics pray to the dead. The bible is clear that only god knows if someone is to go to heaven or to hell. You are only supposed to pray for those who grieve, not for the dead.

It is true that only God knows for certain who is in Hell. The Catholic Church will never claim to know the particular identity of any particular soul who is in Hell. We know people go there, and they will stay there forever, but we don't kow which ones in particlar. As to Heaven, there are actually many that we can say we know are there, besides Mary, Elijah - and those are the "Saints" with a capital S - persons canonized as Saints by the Church, and we can know are they are in Heaven. Of course ther are countless others there whose names we don't know who populate Heaven, all those unknown saints. But the canonized Saints have been investigated and proven and declared to be there by the authority of the Church. That authority was given to the Church by Jesus, which He gave to Peter and the Apostles when He formed His Church and gave them authority over it, when He came back after His Resurrection, and before He ascended to Heaven. He told them,

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Basically, what the Church formally decrees on earth, then so agrees Heaven. So when the Church definitively says someone is in Heaven, by naming them a Saint, this is where the authority comes from to say that. And that's some pretty serious authority, which the Church does not take lightly. Its quite a long, long involved process to canonize a Saint; there is much investigation, and there have to be provable miracles that require strict documentation that happened when their prayer assistance was asked for. I think for Pope John Paul II it was a woman who was born with no pupils - blind, of course - who asked for prayers, and she was made to see. And, as she still has no pupils, medical doctors confirm that this is certainly miraculous and cannot be explained by science. Then there was a nun cured of Parkinson's, the long illness and its total cure all properly documented.

Again, Jesus is recorded in the bible as saying "“I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Its the truth! Even if on earth they never acknowledge Jesus, because they don't know Him, because they heard wrong of Him, because they had good reason not to believe what they were told of Him - only God knows the heart and therefore the true reasons - that person will still only get to Heaven by Jesus. Its the truth.

Jesus is the Intercessor, Saviour, and Resurrector in Christianity...you mention Jesus in the Lazarus case, but complete miss the point about how I've been saying in Christianity that only Jesus could have risen Lazarus from the dead.

Not sure what you are saying here. Not sure how I missed a point? I mean, of course, only Jesus could have raised Lazarus. But that is not the point you say I am missing, right?

Judgement Day has not actually happened yet. You can tell this because for example because the last trumpet happens after The Rapture, and most of the events of Revelations...which haven't happened yet.

Yes, Judgment Day has not happened yet. Its at the end of time, at the end of the earth - actually long after, I believe. But I understand the confusion and I once had the same question. Our Church teaches two judgments, which I will describe to the best of my ability but I will find more references (including scriptural support) if you would like a better explanation.

There is a particular judgment for individuals when they die. They go in one of two directions - their direction forever. Its Hell or Heaven-bound. If Hell, they go immediately - no long nap first! If Heaven, they either go directly there if they have worked out ALL, every last bit of their "salvation in fear and trembling" while they are here on earth, or, if they still have some work to do, they have a nice place to go, a place where there is much peace, the peace of knowing they are absolutely on the way to Heaven, to do whatever work they have left to do to be Heaven-ready. That's MOST of us! Most of us have lessons in love and forgiveness to learn still, including love and forgiveness of ourselves, and the Merciful God has provided such a place, which we call Purgatory. (When we are there we are completely assured of Gods amazing love and total forgiveness; its our own stuff we have to work out).

I know you will want scriptural support for the existence of Purgatory, having been mistold by Protestants that there is no such place, but there is, and I'll look it up for you later if you want.

Long after everyone on earth dies off, after everyone in purgatory has advanced out of it (having learned all the lessons in love they missed learning on earth), when earth is a vast wasteland of not a single living thing, just dust everywhere, then all will hear the Last Trumpet, and then will come the big Judgment Day. I know that our bodies will be raised incorruptible like Jesus - we will heave our real, same bodies we had on earth but now they will be incorruptible, and we can know from Jesus' Resurrection bit of how they will be - real bodies, solid, perfect (not flawed) and able to pass through walls, able to eat or not, able to be in more than one place at once... those are just some of the things we saw of Jesus' resurrected body. So on that day, our spirits, from wherever they have been sent to be for eternity, will join them, and then the Judgment. Which I haven't tried to learn much about myself. I can look up in the catechism about it if you want, though.

(However, I have on my bookshelf an AMAZING account of an "eye witness" to the raising of the dead on that awesome day, by a mystic!).

[Part 2 of 3 in next post]

___________________________________________

[Eliza Thomason]

This post is Part 2 of 3

I've quoted many verses including from Jesus where the dead are described as asleep until Judgement Day. This is line with traditional Jewish doctrine.

Yes, you did, and I replied here that when scripture, including the words of Jesus, do not agree with the rest of scripture, you have to rethink the meaning.

Also then as I described above you can now see that Catholics do not believe in any long, very-sound sleep between death and the Judgment, like you mentioned. I don't know when such an idea came about. Certainly it was popularized in recent centuries. However, you can see, from the quotes in blue above, that such an idea is in conflict with scripture.

Jesus DID say to someone on the Cross that "Today you will be with me in Paradise", but this emphasises the significance of the sleeping state: a person dies and as they experience it, they are immediately at the day of judgement.

I got ahead of you here, but I do understand that Jesus' statement does not make sense in the light of Protestant theology so an explanation has to be offered.

Consider also 2 Peter 3:1-9:

It appears to simply mean "died" here. "Sleep" is a more poetic translation. Some translations use "died" instead of sleep, seeing that's the intention. i.e., NIV's "...Ever since our ancestors died,..."

The bible doesn't say it was a dream: it was a vision. I dare say a supernatural being such as God could have done that to Moses, but it would have been contrary to Moses being a sinner who remains dead until judgement day.

We can only guess. My idea is that just as it was the real Elijah it was the real Moses. Just as God raised Lazarus' rotting body for the sake of a miracle that should have convinced the most rabid skeptic, God could have also said, "Moses, My friend, I want you united with your body before most everyone's else's is, and so I shall do it now, on this very special occasion" and so, He did.

In the event of Jesus' resurrection, it was probably only suppose to be applicable to local saints that Jesus knew personally.

(Lost your meaning here).

Again, the bible doesn't say any of these things about Mary.

Yes it does. Do you want some links full of scripture references to this? If you do, I will look up the links for you.

I think by the true church you mean the Catholics, which rather ignores all the tens of thousands of other sects, including ones that are just as old as the Catholics, such as the Orthodox and the Oriental churches. It also ignores churches that predate even these, such as the one set up by James, brother of Jesus, before they were slaughtered by our spiritual ancestors.

By the true Church yes, I mean the Catholic Church built on Peter the Rock, with an unbroken line of Popes after people these 200 years. There is no such institute on earth! But it really is all-inclusive. The Orthodox - it is recognized as being "the other lung" of the Catholic Church. Also there are many rites within the Catholic Church, not just the Roman rite we think f when we think of Catholic, which also the Pope normally celebrates. There is Byzantine, Melchite, Oriental, Coptic, Armenian, Maronite, Anglican and more.

The Catholic Church considers Protestants and all its splinters to be "separated brethren", so, therefore, under the protective wing of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And She acknowledges that God is with all these churches, if they want Him. God is not limited.

Jesus had no biological brothers, so you would be referring to what in our culture we call his COUSIN, the Apostle James. As Martin Luther and all Christians before Luther's splinters in every generation has accepted, the Virgin Mary was virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

The problem is in translation. Orthodox Christians guess him to be stepbrother, a previous son of a supposedly widowed Joseph (which is why he appears to be an old man in many paintings). I go with the one of the more common Catholic theories, which also agrees with at least two reputable mystics, that James and Judas were Jesus' cousins that grew up with nearby - specifically, two of one of Joseph's brother's sons.

Here is an good discussion explanation of the translation problems with "brothers of Jesus": http://www.catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy

Unlike the Protestant-directed movies, who want to minimize Mary, and make her less special than the Catholics claim she is, and so they depict Mary screaming bloody murder as she sweats out an an earthly birth, with the assistance of a midwife , the birth of Our Lord was different from our births. The Virgin gave birth to her own Creator, the God of the Universe, and, as her Son saved her from Original sin before she was born, because of her role in salvation, she did not have the difficult birth that the rest of us inherited, which was one of the results of Original Sin entering the world. Instead, she, as St. Augustine put it, gave birth "just as light passes through glass without breaking it, so Our Lord is born of the Virgin Mary without breaking the seal of Her virginity." That's beautiful, that's peaceful, and that's true. The Incarnation. The biggest event in the history of mankind. And it was a true virgin birth. Really, any other way, and the words "virgin birth" have no sensible meaning.

As far as James, the Apostle of Our Lord, starting his very own schismatic Church - that simply never happened.

There is nothing in the bible that states that God intended Mary to be a new Eve. You seem to be venerating her in a way that you should only have for Christ. You are not supposed to have false idols, whether spiritual or wooden.

Its in there. If you want links to discussions of scriptural support of Mary as new Eve, I will look them up.

Catholic doctrine and dogma do not include any false idol, neither spiritual nor wooden. That is a misguided, misinformed and false accusation.

If you want links to scriptural support for Catholic practices which Protestants falsely name "false idols", I will also look up those links for you.

Look, when Mary was told she was "full of grace", this was at one moment in time, the time when she had been told the news that god had chosen her to give birth to her Messiah

.
No, that was an eternal angel speaking eternal truth, not some temporal being. He greeted her not by name but with a title: "Full of Grace". Humble Mary, well versed in scripture and all things of God, was startled - she knew the weight of being given a title by an angel.

Its a scriptural truth that has been contemplated by greater minds than ours over the centuries. Its a truth admitted by Martin Luther. It is only in the many decades and splinters since Martin Luther began his own church that you now have Christians who are so ignorant and so grossly minimizing of the role of Mary.

This does not mean that Mary was always full of grace:

But it does.

it also does not mean that God is not with those who sin: if this was true, God would be with no one, as all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Of course that's true, and of course Catholics believe that. One thing I came across a LOT in my conversion learning, a thing that someone else pointed out to me which explained a lot, is that on so many things, its not EITHER the Protestant way OR the Catholic way is true, but Catholics believe BOTH/And - both the Protestant truths and the Catholic ones. Because we have the same Holy Scripture, you know, for the most part, and we do believe its the Word of God.

There is nothing scriptural that says that something greater can come from something less: indeed, even with you saying that Mary was sinless, you still believe she was no match for Jesus.

Yes, of course, that is what we believe. But where in scripture does it say than nothing greater can come from less? And pretty much all Christians believe that something greater came from less when Jesus was born.

Mary was sinless not of her own power but by the grace of God. Jesus was sinless because He is God.

In addition, remember that Nathanael infamously said “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”, such was its low reputation.

Yes, interesting. I wonder if it was not part of the plan so that Jesus could be raised out of the spotlight. In a humble place.

btw, Luther may be a pre-deceasor of mine, but I'm not actually Protestant, and if I was, I'd be one of the millions who'd consider him an awful zealot and anti-Semite, amongst other things.

Oh, I am not assuming anything you have not spoken. Only some Protestants today would consider themselves direct spiritual descendants of Luther... some claim to be more from Calvin, or Wesley, if anyone. I used to say I was "just plain Christian". But the fact is, my beliefs did have origins. Anyway, here in this thread I am addressing many of your statements as being Protestant, because most of them are, and most of them evolved from Luther's new church ideas. Yeah, Luther was an misguided zealot, he was anti-Semite, and he suffered from scrupulosity, which explains a lot of his new religion.

I criticize the thought, the faulty theology, but not those who adhere to it. Because while we Catholics have the whole truth in our teachings, that doesn't mean we are the whole best persons! Of course there are many practicing Protestants who are much better Christians than many practicing Catholics. In the same way there are atheists who look way more like Christians than some Christians - because they are loving, merciful, forgiving, charitable - and therefore will arrive at purgatory with a LOT less to learn than many Catholics. So I just want to say, I am debating theology here - not souls!

I already explained this. Because Christianity, at least your version of it, treats humans as inherently evil and needing of outside help.

"Inherently evil" - thats Calvinism, not Catholicism. "Needing outside help" - yes, we will claim that!

It doesn't see the natural good in people, except as extensions of god's own supposed goodness.

No, Catholicism does see the good in people - because God created us so.

If this wasn't the case, then Christianity would reward based on those who do good without reward, even if they do not believe in god: it wouldn't reward those who only sinned all their lives before giving a deathbed confession.

Well, Catholics believe that those who do good will receive reward for it in Heaven, even if they did not believe in God while on earth. Because God is just, and some might have good reason not to believe. They will be judged on how much they obeyed the godly truths they were taught in the place they were in, or that their heart told them. Gods laws are written in our hearts, so, we follow, or we reject.

Also, yes, we know from scripture that Jesus explained that some just make it into the eternal Heaven at the last minute, as in a deathbed confession, like you say.

I am going to link you here to a little booklet by a modern day prophet (or mystic). The reason why I am linking you to it is to show you exactly where atheists stand with God - who does exist, if they want to admit it or not. Anne records the words of Jesus and also some Saints or Apostles and Mary, all pertaining to a particular topic for our times in these booklets. This is "Heaven Speaks to Those Who Have Rejected God". I like that God chose someone like Anne to speak to in a special way, who has had a normal life, and, I found in reading Volume Two, is such a regular person that she even she still had not yet overcome such habits as smoking and swearing - while God was speaking to her in this favored way! She is a real, "everyday" kind of person. Booklets are $2, Volumes are $5, or you can read them free online, in 17 languages.

The Catholic praise for Mary is not really praise for Mary at all: it is backhanded praise for god for supposedly making her that way.

We venerate her as "God's Masterpiece". Not such backhanded compliment.

And for a supernatural being to only be able to make a handful (at best) of humans sinless out of billions shows god to be rather incompetent, and not deserving of any praise either.

LOL. If that was His intention, then it certainly would be incompetent. It is His desire to we learn to overcome sin. But its the "free will" factor that means everything. He does not want us to be puppets that He operates, pulling our strings. He wants our free consent.

If I am wrong: answer this: if a person does not believe in god, where do they go on judgement day?

Remembering this question of yours is why I wanted to link you to the above booklet. Its one of my favorites, since my Dad, who has passed away, had a "scientific mind" and was not inclined to believe, even though he attended church with my mother, like a good husband. He probably inherited this attitude from his father, who never went to church again after his Episcopalian Church refused to remarry him after divorce. So I have wondered these things myself. And I feel at peace with what is written in that booklet concerning this matter.

If a person was inherently good, they wouldn't need god's assistance, and the majority (if not all) would go to heaven.

Well even an inherently good person does not always do the right thing. For example, out of fear they might be dishonest or cheat. So many factors! But we have a place to work all this out; its Purgatory. Jesus brought Anne there and she wrote about it in her book, Mist of Mercy. I will send you a copy if you want, also anyone who is curious and PM's me I will send them a copy. You will agree with what Anne said, after seeing various parts of it - that if God thinks you need to spend some time there, you won't mind at all. Its a good place.

One of my favorite spiritual books is A Man Called Peter, by Catherine Marshall. Peter was her wonderful husband, a Presbyterian Pastor, who was chaplain for the senate, was popular and well-loved by all, and died rather young and unexpectedly. Its a beautiful love story of the two of them and a beautiful faith story. Catherine had a vision of her husband after he died. He was in a rose garden, tending roses - something he always loved to do but had little time for. He was happy - and if I recall correctly, he was "thinking" some things out, and Catherine noticed he was a little "bewildered", as his death was unexpected, though he was at great peace. This vision Catherine had of her husband imprinted on my mind, and I think God intended it to so I would remember it when I learned more about His Purgatory someday.

When my Dad died a few years back, it left a hole. The day of the funeral, my eldest brother, his namesake, had a dream that seemed more real than a dream, which he told. He saw my Dad walking down a nice empty country road, with a dog wagging his tail beside him, and my Dad turned around to look at him and smiled, and kept walking. It was as good for me as if I had had this dream. I am sure God gave it to us all through him to comfort us. Because my Dads mobility had been severely impaired by Parkinson's for a long time before he died, and he spent his final months confined to the hospital and a nursing home. To walk, free and able, in the fresh air, on a country road, with a dog (he had had a dog growing up as an only child that he loved) with a great sense of peace seems just exactly what he would need after his ordeal.

I do think both these visions are of purgatory.


[below: re: my statements on Jesus in pure Tabernacle of Mary's womb]

You say that, but the bible also says that God allowed himself to be placed in a manger, to dwell amongst humans for thirty years, and to be crucified, amongst other things..

This is a thoughtful comment. Yes, God did let all those things happen to His Son. It is a comfort when we suffer to know that God, in His Son, suffered too. Sensitive, intelligent, loving souls suffer more, too. And clearly Jesus was that.

"He is despised and rejected ...; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief..." - Isaiah 53:3 (KJV)

[Pt. 3 of 3 is in the next post]

________________________________________________

[Eliza Thomason]

This post is part 3 of 3

Jesus considered such laws to be ceremonial laws, which he abolished as he fulfilled various prophecies.
You can tell this because Jesus made it perfectly clear that the only way of obtaining Salvation (was through him, not through temples, priests, slaughtered lambs and so on (Jesus replaced all those things with himself).

Well, its not perfectly clear. I am not a theologian, but I will share my limited understanding. I can research this if you want better. Yes, the only way of salvation is through Christ. Previous remission for sins was through slaughtered lambs, and God's priests to accomplished this, in His Temple. No lambs anymore - Jesus was the perfect once-for-all Sacrifice. Jesus founded a church and yes, some things like dietary laws were abolished. But the Ten Commandments and the Natural Law are still applicable, so it was not all abolished. Some of it changed - like the Sacrifice. From the very start of Jesus' Church, it was no longer the Temple, but the Church. And that Sacrifice, from the very start of the Church, is central to the Church. Every Mass is a genuine re-presentation of the actual once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus. For this a priest is needed, so, there are still priests. By the authority of the Church, given to the priest through his Holy Orders, a Priest works a miracle in every Mass; the Holy Spirit comes down from Heaven and changes the bread and the wine into the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And we partake of the Lamb, in the form of bread and wine, which actually is the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. And when you read writings of the early Church, it confirms this has always been true - every gathering of the first Christian is the true seed of the catholic Mass today. All the prayers and all the readings are focused on leading up to the moment of consecration, and then thanksgiving for it. Its actually true. And there have been many converts of those who studied the early Church, in order to imitate it, and found it was actually a Catholic Mass. This is completely different from most Protestant Services, the center of which is the sermon.

That's a pretty big truth of the Church for one paragraph, but I will find other references if you want, and I will also send you books if you want. (People sent me books when I was researching such amazing claims, so I am happy to pay it forward!).

Not quite true. Jesus and the early apostles in the New Testament were quite clear that you didn't even need the books to be saved: you just need to follow the commandments and follow Him.

And yet, Jesus did come back and start a Church, putting His apostles in charge, and giving them authority, and promising that the Holy Spirit would always be with it. It must have been pretty important work considering it was after his Resurrection and before His Ascension. So, yes, to actually be saved its takes the grace of God, not any work of ours. But God wants more of us. Yes, like you say, we need to follow His commandments and follow Him. But that's not so easy. In fact, it can take extraordinary graces to do so; we have so many obstacles, and we fail a lot. And God's ordinary way of pouring down the Extraordinary Graces that we need to do His will is through the Sacraments of His Church. The Church has the tools for the ordinary, easy way to grow in holiness.

We talked about the papacy before I think, but that is not even scriptural. The bedrock of the church is Jesus himself, not Simon.

Well, of course, Jesus at this point in this conversation addressed him with the new name of Peter. We maybe talked about the papacy before, but if you want me to look up links on this providing scriptural support, I will. The "Peter, the Rock on which Jesus built his Church" discussions are really interesting!

Matthew 7:24-25 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock."

True! (This is one of those both/and things i think).

Actually, that's my point. The book of James WASN'T in the early canon, it was either considered heretical or an appendage at best for the first 4 centuries A.D. or so. This is apart from the fact it isn't known who actually wrote it, and that there is no evidence it was written in the first century. It isn't as problematic theologically as other such books though.

An authoritative yet brief answer to those who question the book of James is in that first link above, where the blue quotes come from.

In addition, the "prayer of a righteous man" in no way legitimises praying for dead people to intercede on your behalf. A dead person isn't especially righteous either.

(I think this is covered above)

below is re: what I said here: "Its your belief, not mine, that the dead in Christ just disappear and are completely separated from us on earth. I believe with the Catholic Church that the dead in Christ are still alive, alive in Christ, and are still members of the living Church. They pray for us and care what we do in our day-to-day lives. They care because God cares, and they, who are with Him, care about what God cares about. I know this because I have received miraculous answers to prayers to Saints for their intercession, and so have countless others.[/quote]

Why do you think that a prayer from a saint means more than that of a penitent? Jesus makes it clear that all have sinned, and it is not who you are that counts in such things (consider the poor widow and the mite): it is the intent that matters.

Because (also quoted above) the Saints in Heaven are equal to the angels, and are His sons (according to Luke 20:35-36). And the saints are one with God, and that He has given them HIS glory (John 17:20-23). So yes, being equal to the angels, they know what we are going through. They have "made it", and they want us to make it, and they want to assist us with their prayers. They are with God now, and they love Him, and they know what He cares about, and God's goals are their goals! And God lets them help! Does an omnipotent God need help? No, but He likes help because He loves. Its like a Mom who makes cookies with her 3 year old's help. Can Mom do it better and faster? Yes. But the point for Mom is the interaction with her child, and the child's delight in being allowed to help. In the same way, God uses the Saints help, and He uses our help. And this is a mystery, but I believe it is the truth: God actually needs our help. I think that is because He is Love.

One way we can know about what the Saints in Heaven are like is that there are some who became basically Saints while they were yet on earth. They so completely died to self ("so that it is no longer I who lives, but Christ in me") that we have some evidence of what the Saints are like and what they can do. There are so many amazing ones! Its hard to pick! But, take Padre Pio - like him, we can expect to be able to bi-locate - be in more than one place at once. Also, he could read souls. It was impossible to lie to him in Confession. And if you mistakenly left something out, he would tell you. People knew this was a supernatural grace, so they would stand in line for days for confession, and Padre Pio, servant of God, would give himself up for 15-19 hours a day at this. There are so many different amazing graces that God gives to those who love and obey Him here on earth, and Saints are witnesses to those gifts and a forecast of what we'll be like in Heaven.

[true and informative stories about confession with Padre Pio on this page (scroll down to the "fireworks"): http://caccioppoli.com/Close%20encou...0Weddings.html

{I am editign to add, that some years after Padre Peio was buried, they exhumed his body, which was found to be graced with incorruptibility. Some (a very low %) of Saints are, and reamian so, for centuries. I htought I woudl mention that since I was discussing Saints with you. Beign exhumed and found incorrupt is not a reason to be named a Saint. But it is evidence that calls for a formal investigation including the required documented and proven miracles in order to see if the person can be deemed a Saint). Here is Padre Pio today:https://www.google.com/search?q=padr...w=1024&bih=673
See also: http://listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-...rrupt-corpses/

Conversely, the bible has no instance of a patriarch or apostle praying for the dead, and has many instances of praying for the souls of those who are still living. The reason given is that once you die, you are judged based on the life you have lived. Nothing changes that. Praying for the souls of the living however is still all to play for, and this is why it is emphasized. No, I don't pray for the dead.

O guess that was not a good question I asked. Without Purgatory, why would you pray for the dead? The world is divided into two: the damned, and those asleep who need nothing.

As to Bible evidence: The most direct and clear and unquestionable example is the good Judas of Maccabees I quoted recently. But there is scriptural support elsewhere in the Protestant's 66 books, which I can look up.

If people are inherently good as you claim, it would not be a struggle to be good, especially when God is so much more powerful than the devil. You also seem to think that not believing in god is a sin, no matter how good a person is. A truly good person is someone who does what they do for others with what little with have, and with no expectation of reward.

A lot of thoughtful points here. I'll do my best with a Catholic response!

Yes, people are inherently good but because evil is in the world and we have free will (as well as a tendency to be drawn to sin due to the stain of Original Sin that we inherited) we still have a struggle. We also have choice - free will is very important to God; He give us choice and he is no Indian-giver. We get true choice and the consequences of our choices come with that. So we must be wise (and God says if anyone seeks wisdom He will give it to us generously). We are not as intelligent as the angels and we do not have their deep knowledge and eternal perspective, so our choices, unlike theirs, are changeable. We have a lifetime (most of us) to get it right. And if we still don't get it right, our Merciful God gives us some time after we die to get it right! However, we do experience painful remorse for those times we knowingly rejected God and His will.

I am not sure that not believing in God is a sin. In some cases it most certainly would not be, like, if someone had been taught a truly bad and wrong view of God, it woudl be natural. Only God can know the heart, and truly know what a person has internalized and what influenced them. But God gives people many chances to know Him. He knows people completely and most deeply, better than they know themselves, and He knows how to work at encouraging them to go the way that is best for them. As that linked booklet attests, God is generous and Merciful and if there is any small part of a person open to God, God rewards that. One risks great regret after they die for how they spent their life, though. And also one risks hell. Because truly reject God, and you could begin to also reject good. Do that for too long, and you can change, and no longer desire good at all. And then you might completely reject good at the end, which would be very bad for you. It could end in hell.

Yes, a truly good person does the right thing with no expectation of reward. But God tells us there is a reward for us in Heaven. And He encourages us not to look for a reward here. (the way I see it, I expect my good works to go unacknowledged. Sometimes I feel embarrassed when they are, and sometimes I feel it is a temptation to pride. Other times, if feels like a consolation from God. That God promises rewards for us tells me that they are something we sort of need, that we are designed for them. Also we know that the surprise rewards are best. And I think God savors surprising us with good gifts like a parent savors the same.

....I learned once when I was very young that sneaking into Mom's closet and peeking at all the yet-unwrapped gifts is very fun and so clandestinely exciting, but wow, it sure ruins the fun of Christmas Day (which is why that one time was the only time!).

If God was just, he would not eternally damn people for alleged crimes they committed in their short lifespan. He would also judged himself by the same standard he judges others: a supernatural being who actively or passively causes suffering would be the greatest evil.

No, he doesn't damn people for choosing to sin in this life. He totally understands. Heaven is full of sinners who have committed every kind of terrible crime! You name it. Of course its true what you say, that a supernatural that causes suffering woudl be terribly evil - oh, yeah, there is one, and his minions, but I won't honor him with a name mention. God loves us, and while His rules may seem to us sometimes just too much, too unreasonable, especially when our culture says some of those things are just fine, and they just doesn't reason out for us, He only has our good in mind, our happiness in this life and the next. He made us, He designed us, and He knows what will hurt us. Obedience to what He calls us to will bring us happiness, and joy, even if at first it seems to only rob us of it.

Disobedience will bring us trouble. It becomes worse for us when we know its wrong, and we keep ignoring our conscience. If we keep going down that road, it can end in perdition. Because we can start liking sin and hating good. We don't want to be set in those ways when we are old.

So often I have heard great Catholic theologians explains that all the people in hell want to be there. They hate good, and they do not want to be there with God who is All Good, so they choose hell. They hate it there but they want to be there. And it is hell. I know people like to say it is the only fun place so they want to go there, but its not fun and they will not like being there.

(Misunderstanding is not going to get one to hell. It has to be actual rejection of good, and rejection of God, the true God, with knowledge of who He is.)

In addition, consider for example that Jesus said "the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”: not only is this self-obsessed considering that Jesus believed there would be no poor people in heaven, and that he would be there for all eternity,.

Yes, there is no poverty in Heaven. This statement of Jesus is because Judas Iscariot did not like Mary Magdalene pouring expensive oil on his feet in repentance and to bless Jesus before his Sacrifice. He wasn't saying the poor should not be cared for, he was saying Mary's act of love was okay. The point was that in contrast to the poor, they would very soon not be with Him.

He said other things about the poor, too, like when you feed them, you are actually feeding Him. People gave Him money all the time. He immediately gave it to the poor. He lived poor. His message on how to treat the poor was clear and His response to the rash Judas Iscariot's complaint does not minimize it. Again, with scripture, context is vital.

the UN has cut extreme poverty worldwide by half in 20 years between 1990 and 2010, five years ahead of schedule, something that the Church with its negative doctrine and its $ billions did not achieve in 2000 years. The UN would like to abolish extreme poverty comfortably within this century.

Well, that's a worthy goal, and it sounds like they have already made some progress. I do not think you can compare the Church's giving, which is extremely generous and constant certainly surpasses that of the UN. Its not something I keep account of or would enjoy looking up but I will if you want. You are not the first to make the oft-repeated and highly exaggerated "billions of riches" claim, of course you have heard those accusations stated as if they are fact and are repeating it here. I have heard responses to such highly exaggerated accusations which were satisfactory to me, but I cannot remember what they are. I wonder how much charitable giving the people do that tout this complaint? Are they giving their "widow's mite"? I know many Catholics who do. And Protestants, I should add. Really, it is only among Christians that personally I have seen people who choose to live very modestly so that they can give to the poor regularly. It is something I have never personally seen in action outside of Christianity. Yes, I have heard stories of the very rich giving generous gifts, living large with lots of leftover to share big. And that is good. But not as personally impressive to me as a family living small every day so they can give big, regularly.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This response is so long its unwieldy. So I divided it into 3 posts. This is Pt. 1 of 3.

Its not a New Testament book.

"In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year."

And so it stayed for about 12 centuries, until Martin Luther decided that parts of holy scripture conflicted with his own ideas. How could this be that God let so many Christians be wrong about this for so long? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping?

The above quote is from the link I gave you, above - - http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm Its not a long read. You should take a look at it. Scripture references to the Protestant's missing books have to make you think. Also that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah as a holy feast day.

Also to confirm that Jesus had those books in His Holy Scripture, there is this (from that link): "It’s important also to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls included the book of Tobit and the book of Sirach, proving that the people back then thought them canonical, because they were found with the book of Isaiah and other Old Testament books. "

I do not know how that can not be convincing.

And finally there is this other point, which some might consider an unimportant aside, but it seemed kind of glaring to me, so when the above linked mentioned it, it really confirmed my own impression:

"And an interesting numerology coincidence occurs here as well. In the bible, the number 7 denotes perfection (God rested on the 7th day, 7 spirits that minister to God, 7 sacraments), and the number 3 represents the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the number 6 represents imperfection (as in 666). Therefore, 73 books sure sounds a lot better than 66 books!"

It really does sound more right. Maybe because it is.

ok, perhaps this is pedantic, I would say that any book from the time of Christ that is considered valid (and not apocrypha) by a sect would be considered a New Testament book: because it is considered part of the testament of Christ and as valid.

The early church has absolutely nothing to do with Luther. 1 and 2 Maccabees have always been considered part of the deuterocanon, and as I said, were not considered core texts of the New Testament (or perhaps more correctly, the Jesus part of the Hebrew Bible): they simply were not unambiguously agreed upon the first centuries of the church, and there were great variations in what was considered central.

As it is, to say that these texts were part of "Jesus' Bible" and then quote as evidence dates in the 4th century, a good three centuries after Jesus allegedly walked the Earth (although a little less if he died in Kashmir) is completely wrong. In addition, the level of evidence in terms of attribution and provenance even of books like the four gospels is bad enough without discussing the deuterocanonical works (although this is less important when only a rough chronology is needed and when the work is not claimed to be an eyewitness account: however, in the case of the gospels, there is no evidence about who actually wrote them or when).

The point of that story is not the point you are making. In Samuel we see confirmed the truth as stated in Deuteronomy that it is wrong to conjure up a dead person in order to gain hidden knowledge. The Church has always taught clearly in the Catechism that to do this is a grave sin. This is not the same as Catholics being in union with the Saints in Heaven, or praying for the souls of the dead, as did the good Judas of Maccabees. Protestant Christians of good will, who seek to please God, mistakenly broad brush it, like you are doing here. It is an error.

The following quote in blue has scriptural supports for prayers to the dead, and it explains why we Catholics do that. From that same website above, on a different page:

"The saints are not dead, they are alive. Jesus says that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32). Paul says that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, in Hebrews 12:1. Witnesses have to be alive in order to testify on our behalf to the supreme judge.

In Revelation 6:10, we learn that the saints in heaven know what is going on down here on earth.
In Luke 16:24, we learn that dead people in hell can communicate with the very dead Abraham.
In Mark 9:4, the "dead" Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus and communicate with Him regarding his exodus from earth.

People who believe that being dead in the body is also dead in the soul are called atheists, not Christians.

Deuteronomy is very clear, you should not communicate with the dead either. This is clear because it says you should not obtain omens from the dead and you should also not call up the dead:

There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

You already know that the bible says that Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven, and that some saints were taken into heaven at the time of Jesus' resurrection, so this alone would be an adequate explanation. Apart from this, it is not at all apparent that the author commonly attributed as John was speaking about heaven at all, or was merely talking about martyrs who had been awaken from their slumber. The bible is quite clear that the dead are asleep unless woken by god himself.

It would be sinful to conjure up a dead person, like Saul did with Samuel (1 Samuel 28:14), in order to gain hidden knowledge (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).
But asking for intercession (1 Timothy 2:1) from live, holy people is very biblical, due to the power they have (James 5:16, 2 Peter 1:4).

I do not consider Revelations to be a reliable book for Christian beliefs (although it is a moderately good inspiration for musicians): it is an appendage that it is an entirely out of character with the rest of the bible, and has millions of interpretations.

In regards Luke, Jesus is clearly being inconsistent with himself, although there is nothing that says that the dead cannot talk with each other, only that you should not communicate with the dead.

We have already discussed the Transfiguration of Jesus, which was notably a miracle for the Transfiguration, not for the resurrection. The Christian view of the Old Testament is that Moses had a covenant with god, but had a major falling out with him immediately before his death: he was a repentant sinner, but not sufficient for god to raise him into heaven upon his death. So what makes you think that god would raise Moses into heaven in the new testament, before the fulfilment of the new covenant?

Revelation 5:8 and 8:3 plainly state that the saints and angels present our prayers to God in the form of incense. Saints pray alongside of us to Jesus as our intercessors. They do not stand "between" us and God. And they can pray for us when we are asleep, 24/7. "

The prays of the saints in Revelations have nothing whatsoever to do with dead saints interceding on our behalf. It says absolutely nothing on the matter. Jesus was clear that all who accepted him as their Saviour were his saints, and that saints should pray while they were alive, as they were unable to do so when they were dead. i.e. any prayers whether by you or on your behalf, are by the living, not dead saints.

That is a very important point. You, Subteigh, repeat a common Protestant accusation that Jesus is not being the "only mediator" between God and man if one asks for the assistance of prayers from the saints in Heaven. But you are not understanding the context of the word "mediator". That is explained below, and I think you will agree that it is something that Catholics and Protestants agree on. Only, Protestants extend it, to mean MORE than scripture says it means, and that is their error:

There is indeed one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. And what is He the mediator of?
Paul says in Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 12:24 that Jesus is the mediator of THE NEW COVENANT, not prayer.

Intercession in prayer does not equate to being the mediator of the New Covenant; they are 2 entirely different things.

Actually, this isn't a Protestant objection. The Old Covenant with god regarding Jews to make prayers to god via a sacrifice following ceremonial law, at the Temple. This is why there is a great Jewish sadness (especially amongst traditional sects), as the Temple in Jerusalem is no more.

The importance of the New Covenant as you should know is that Jesus is the sacrifice for all of humanity, for all their sins, and he is the new Temple through which prayers should be made. Say what you like, but in John, Jesus is attributed as saying rather to the point that "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Bowing down to images of Mary would be considered blasphemy in the Torah: they is only one god in Judaism and Christianity.

The saints are equal to the angels, and are His sons, according to Luke 20:35-36.

John 17:20-23 says that the saints are one with God, and that He has given them HIS glory."

Indeed, it is fair to assume that anyone who has accepted Christ and are therefore saints would be reciprocally blessed. But this is true in the New Testament for the living as much as the dead.

So you can see, there are a LOT of Holy Scripture support for Catholic practices. Furthermore, no Catholic practices violate scripture. You can say it does, as you have said - but you realize that people use scripture verses to say all kinds of things. Look how many brands of Protestant faith there all, all based on the Bible, all saying different things are right or not, all using scripture to back it up.

I can assure you that every "Biblical" protest you come up with against Catholicism, you will find there is extremely thorough Biblical support for it! Catholics view scripture as Sacred, and NONE of our beliefs are contrary to it. NONE.

Believe me, as a practicing Evangelical Protestant for many years, I had all those questions! In fact, I explored Catholicism quite sure I would find it was wrong! I did not expect to find so much truth, so many answers! I did not want to convert; I liked being Protestant. But its true - so I did. (And I'm glad! It truly was a pearl of great price for me!, and will always remain so).

One truth I found in my conversion was that Catholics who convert to Protestant don't know what they are leaving. They are ignorant of their faith, due to poor catechesis, or only a weak child's knowledge of it; they never explored their faith as a mature adult. And so the Protestant protests against their faith seem that they must be true.

But its opposite of that with Protestant converts to Catholic. They KNOW why they are becoming Catholic, and they know what they are leaving behind - they know both thoroughly. Only, I would not say leaving behind. All of the converts I know consider their Protestant formation dear and precious, and their coming home to the Catholic Church as a growing up of their faith, not a growing out of. We see it as arriving to the place of the fullness of faith. Our previous understanding of the things of God before was merely incomplete, vs. wrong. And we all know we can still learn much from our Protestant brothers and sisters, or from anyone who is open to God's working in their hearts.

(and often those Catholic converts to Protestant stumble upon the truth of the Catholic faith, and they return home to the Church. They are called "Reverts", and if you Goggle "Catholic Revert" you'll find plenty of stories! Here is one page of people telling their stories: http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/c...tholic-reverts)

I also want to add that the cloud of witnesses - the saints that have gone on before us - would not be sleeping - in order to testify. As far as the sleeping that you mention below, those quotes above should dispel that notion.

You only have to look at a history of papal pronouncements to see that this cannot be the case: there are numerous accounts of popes contradicting each other.

I wrote: "Life is too short for this! I do not want to spend my time with you for such silliness. If you really care to share and learn, and you really want to arrive at truth, then sure, its worth the time for me to explain what I believe and what Catholics actually teach." and you wrote:

Well yes, you are right. Its just that sometimes I am afraid that you just want to argue, you don't want to know. Its just me worrying I am wasting my time. But I will be more patient. My time is worth noting at all compared to a soul.

Don't you consider the possibility that, as your mortal life, in my view, is all that you have, I am not merely arguing, but I am concerned that you live what life you have well? If what you believe is true, then you should not worry about your mortal life except where you worry about whether you are able to save as many mortal souls as possible.

You forgot purgatory. That's the reason for the charitable act of praying for the dead. I will discuss that below.

There is no theology grounds for purgatory in the bible. At best, it was a money making scam the church had for centuries. At worse, it was dogma that held back civilisation for centuries. The bible is clear is that once you are dead, you alone are responsible for the life you have lived and the sins you have committed while alive. Praying for a lesser punishment for a loved one goes completely against this.

But I do not think that your conclusion about the point of the story was the point of the story. Because if it was true, that point would have to be in agreement with he rest of scripture. You can see from the quotes in blue, above, that it is not in agreement. So, that can't be the point of the story.

I think the Job quote was just Job, understandably miserable, and stating the true fact that death ends life on earth, and you don't come back alive on earth again. (Unless you are one of the very few who are in the right place at the right time - like Lazarus! God makes the laws of nature, but He is not bound by then - He can violate them when He wants!)

Oh - the John quote - "Lazarus sleeps" - when he was dead. I see. Yes, that seems to support your idea of a long, passed-out/comatose, "dead-to-the-world-and-heaven" sleep that you suggest, however, since that idea is in conflict with the other scripture verses, it must be that Jesus meant something else.

I quoted Job amongst other sources as evidence that Jewish theology held that those who were dead, between now and judgement day, are "asleep". I didn't provide them as evidence that the bible said that the dead cannot be risen from the dead.

The laws of nature are measurable and observable, that is why they are called laws of nature. If god did something, no matter how amazing, it would by definition be within the laws of nature.

It is true that only God knows for certain who is in Hell. The Catholic Church will never claim to know the particular identity of any particular soul who is in Hell. We know people go there, and they will stay there forever, but we don't kow which ones in particlar. As to Heaven, there are actually many that we can say we know are there, besides Mary, Elijah - and those are the "Saints" with a capital S - persons canonized as Saints by the Church, and we can know are they are in Heaven. Of course ther are countless others there whose names we don't know who populate Heaven, all those unknown saints. But the canonized Saints have been investigated and proven and declared to be there by the authority of the Church. That authority was given to the Church by Jesus, which He gave to Peter and the Apostles when He formed His Church and gave them authority over it, when He came back after His Resurrection, and before He ascended to Heaven. He told them,

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Basically, what the Church formally decrees on earth, then so agrees Heaven. So when the Church definitively says someone is in Heaven, by naming them a Saint, this is where the authority comes from to say that. And that's some pretty serious authority, which the Church does not take lightly. Its quite a long, long involved process to canonize a Saint; there is much investigation, and there have to be provable miracles that require strict documentation that happened when their prayer assistance was asked for. I think for Pope John Paul II it was a woman who was born with no pupils - blind, of course - who asked for prayers, and she was made to see. And, as she still has no pupils, medical doctors confirm that this is certainly miraculous and cannot be explained by science. Then there was a nun cured of Parkinson's, the long illness and its total cure all properly documented.

The bible does not say that Mary is in heaven. To have the "grace" or "blessing" of god does not mean you automatically go to heaven...it also does not mean you are absolved from suffering death or committing sin. The wages of sin is death, supposedly, and there is no evidence that Mary was without sin or that she escaped death, as that would suggest. Equally, when it is said that someone is "filled with the Holy Spirit", it does not mean you automatically go to heaven.

Canonising saints in such a way is not scriptural, for two reasons. 1) only god knows for sure who are his saints and 2) according to Christian doctrine, all Christians are Saints.

Even if the event occurred, something that "cannot be explained by science" is not a miracle. Science is the study of nature: if an event occurred, it is within the realm of science, not of miracles.

Its the truth! Even if on earth they never acknowledge Jesus, because they don't know Him, because they heard wrong of Him, because they had good reason not to believe what they were told of Him - only God knows the heart and therefore the true reasons - that person will still only get to Heaven by Jesus. Its the truth.

Not sure what you are saying here. Not sure how I missed a point? I mean, of course, only Jesus could have raised Lazarus. But that is not the point you say I am missing, right?

Yes, Judgment Day has not happened yet. Its at the end of time, at the end of the earth - actually long after, I believe. But I understand the confusion and I once had the same question. Our Church teaches two judgments, which I will describe to the best of my ability but I will find more references (including scriptural support) if you would like a better explanation.

There is a particular judgment for individuals when they die. They go in one of two directions - their direction forever. Its Hell or Heaven-bound. If Hell, they go immediately - no long nap first! If Heaven, they either go directly there if they have worked out ALL, every last bit of their "salvation in fear and trembling" while they are here on earth, or, if they still have some work to do, they have a nice place to go, a place where there is much peace, the peace of knowing they are absolutely on the way to Heaven, to do whatever work they have left to do to be Heaven-ready. That's MOST of us! Most of us have lessons in love and forgiveness to learn still, including love and forgiveness of ourselves, and the Merciful God has provided such a place, which we call Purgatory. (When we are there we are completely assured of Gods amazing love and total forgiveness; its our own stuff we have to work out).

I know you will want scriptural support for the existence of Purgatory, having been mistold by Protestants that there is no such place, but there is, and I'll look it up for you later if you want.

Long after everyone on earth dies off, after everyone in purgatory has advanced out of it (having learned all the lessons in love they missed learning on earth), when earth is a vast wasteland of not a single living thing, just dust everywhere, then all will hear the Last Trumpet, and then will come the big Judgment Day. I know that our bodies will be raised incorruptible like Jesus - we will heave our real, same bodies we had on earth but now they will be incorruptible, and we can know from Jesus' Resurrection bit of how they will be - real bodies, solid, perfect (not flawed) and able to pass through walls, able to eat or not, able to be in more than one place at once... those are just some of the things we saw of Jesus' resurrected body. So on that day, our spirits, from wherever they have been sent to be for eternity, will join them, and then the Judgment. Which I haven't tried to learn much about myself. I can look up in the catechism about it if you want, though.

(However, I have on my bookshelf an AMAZING account of an "eye witness" to the raising of the dead on that awesome day, by a mystic!).

[Part 2 of 3 in next post]

___________________________________________

[/quote]

The objection to purgatory is not explicitly a Protestant one.

Jesus in the New Testament made it clear that he died for all the sins of humanity: to suggest that people go to purgatory for petty sins is not a Christian doctrine. You go to hell, the general absence of god, if you do not accept Jesus as your Saviour. That is all Jesus had to say on the matter. Considering that Jesus only spent three days in "hell" for the collected sins of humanity throughout history, do you really think that something as petty as purgatory would be a Christian doctrine?

[Not A Communist Shill]

This post is Part 2 of 3






Yes, you did, and I replied here that when scripture, including the words of Jesus, do not agree with the rest of scripture, you have to rethink the meaning.

Also then as I described above you can now see that Catholics do not believe in any long, very-sound sleep between death and the Judgment, like you mentioned. I don't know when such an idea came about. Certainly it was popularized in recent centuries. However, you can see, from the quotes in blue above, that such an idea is in conflict with scripture.

Again, nothing to do with Catholics versus Protestants. It was (and still is) long-held Jewish belief, including by Jesus.

I got ahead of you here, but I do understand that Jesus' statement does not make sense in the light of Protestant theology so an explanation has to be offered.

Actually, your point about saints being resurrected in Jerusalem on the day of Jesus' death would probably be held to be true by Protestant biblical literalists also (thus they would believe that the man who died with Jesus would have resurrected that day).

It appears to simply mean "died" here. "Sleep" is a more poetic translation. Some translations use "died" instead of sleep, seeing that's the intention. i.e., NIV's "...Ever since our ancestors died,..."

No, there is a very clear distinction between when talking of the soul (which is 'asleep'), and talking since the period of time when someone physically died for example.

We can only guess. My idea is that just as it was the real Elijah it was the real Moses. Just as God raised Lazarus' rotting body for the sake of a miracle that should have convinced the most rabid skeptic, God could have also said, "Moses, My friend, I want you united with your body before most everyone's else's is, and so I shall do it now, on this very special occasion" and so, He did.

but then why the emphasis on the less miraculous Transfiguration of Jesus?

(Lost your meaning here).

The saints who rose at the death of Jesus were in Jerusalem, and would probably have accepted Jesus as their saviour (the new covenant). Otherwise there would have been dead people walking about throughout the whole region. As it is, no other source records such an event.

Yes it does. Do you want some links full of scripture references to this? If you do, I will look up the links for you.

Only if it is scriptural and not laboured ten page analyses of what a single word may or may not have meant in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic.

By the true Church yes, I mean the Catholic Church built on Peter the Rock, with an unbroken line of Popes after people these 200 years. There is no such institute on earth! But it really is all-inclusive. The Orthodox - it is recognized as being "the other lung" of the Catholic Church. Also there are many rites within the Catholic Church, not just the Roman rite we think f when we think of Catholic, which also the Pope normally celebrates. There is Byzantine, Melchite, Oriental, Coptic, Armenian, Maronite, Anglican and more.

The Catholic Church considers Protestants and all its splinters to be "separated brethren", so, therefore, under the protective wing of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And She acknowledges that God is with all these churches, if they want Him. God is not limited.

"There is no such institute on earth" - what do you mean here?
In any case, Jesus himself and his disciples believed Jesus to be the Rock...the name Peter only means "pebble" or "little stone" by comparison, and you wouldn't build a structure on that. Jesus also never referred to Simon as Peter, and all references to "Peter", "Simon Peter", "Simon who was known as Peter" were later additions based on the infamous misunderstanding of this verse.

Jesus had no biological brothers, so you would be referring to what in our culture we call his COUSIN, the Apostle James. As Martin Luther and all Christians before Luther's splinters in every generation has accepted, the Virgin Mary was virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

The problem is in translation. Orthodox Christians guess him to be stepbrother, a previous son of a supposedly widowed Joseph (which is why he appears to be an old man in many paintings). I go with the one of the more common Catholic theories, which also agrees with at least two reputable mystics, that James and Judas were Jesus' cousins that grew up with nearby - specifically, two of one of Joseph's brother's sons.

Here is an good discussion explanation of the translation problems with "brothers of Jesus": http://www.catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy

Unlike the Protestant-directed movies, who want to minimize Mary, and make her less special than the Catholics claim she is, and so they depict Mary screaming bloody murder as she sweats out an an earthly birth, with the assistance of a midwife , the birth of Our Lord was different from our births. The Virgin gave birth to her own Creator, the God of the Universe, and, as her Son saved her from Original sin before she was born, because of her role in salvation, she did not have the difficult birth that the rest of us inherited, which was one of the results of Original Sin entering the world. Instead, she, as St. Augustine put it, gave birth "just as light passes through glass without breaking it, so Our Lord is born of the Virgin Mary without breaking the seal of Her virginity." That's beautiful, that's peaceful, and that's true. The Incarnation. The biggest event in the history of mankind. And it was a true virgin birth. Really, any other way, and the words "virgin birth" have no sensible meaning.

As far as James, the Apostle of Our Lord, starting his very own schismatic Church - that simply never happened.


Its in there. If you want links to discussions of scriptural support of Mary as new Eve, I will look them up.

Catholic doctrine and dogma do not include any false idol, neither spiritual nor wooden. That is a misguided, misinformed and false accusation.

If you want links to scriptural support for Catholic practices which Protestants falsely name "false idols", I will also look up those links for you.

.
No, that was an eternal angel speaking eternal truth, not some temporal being. He greeted her not by name but with a title: "Full of Grace". Humble Mary, well versed in scripture and all things of God, was startled - she knew the weight of being given a title by an angel.

Its a scriptural truth that has been contemplated by greater minds than ours over the centuries. Its a truth admitted by Martin Luther. It is only in the many decades and splinters since Martin Luther began his own church that you now have Christians who are so ignorant and so grossly minimizing of the role of Mary.

The verses in the New Testament refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters in the context of Jesus being the son of Mary and Joseph, which would be peculiar if they were referring to cousins. Also, Joseph and Mary would be the first and only married couple in the whole bible to have never had sex...the idea that Mary was a virgin throughout her life is simply not scriptural. It stems from the belief that Mary *had* to be sinless before she bore Jesus...and then she *had* to be sinless after she bore Jesus to. Apart from anything else, the idea that a mere mortal such as Mary was always sinless is heresy for the reasons already mentioned, but in more detail:

Now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

You think in a passage that mentions Jesus (including his role) numerous times that Mary was really considered sinless?

In addition, Matthew 1:24-25 says:

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

No, that was an eternal angel speaking eternal truth, not some temporal being. He greeted her not by name but with a title: "Full of Grace". Humble Mary, well versed in scripture and all things of God, was startled - she knew the weight of being given a title by an angel.

But it does.

Actually, the angel did refer to her as Mary, and saying that someone is blessed to have been chosen by god to bear his son does not mean she had been given her own title. Also, whether the angel is eternal or not has no bearing on whether the angel's message was eternally valid...especially seeing as the angel made no mention of anything being eternally true. You can say a person is blessed without it being eternally true. Consider for example instances in the bible where god himself changes his mind, or those instances where prophets and cities and disciples are blessed one day, but not the next, as well as the number of times god hardened the Pharoah's heart and caused great suffering before softening it again, in what can only be described as psychopathic evil.

Of course that's true, and of course Catholics believe that. One thing I came across a LOT in my conversion learning, a thing that someone else pointed out to me which explained a lot, is that on so many things, its not EITHER the Protestant way OR the Catholic way is true, but Catholics believe BOTH/And - both the Protestant truths and the Catholic ones. Because we have the same Holy Scripture, you know, for the most part, and we do believe its the Word of God.


Yes, of course, that is what we believe. But where in scripture does it say than nothing greater can come from less? And pretty much all Christians believe that something greater came from less when Jesus was born.

Mary was sinless not of her own power but by the grace of God. Jesus was sinless because He is God.



Yes, interesting. I wonder if it was not part of the plan so that Jesus could be raised out of the spotlight. In a humble place.


Oh, I am not assuming anything you have not spoken. Only some Protestants today would consider themselves direct spiritual descendants of Luther... some claim to be more from Calvin, or Wesley, if anyone. I used to say I was "just plain Christian". But the fact is, my beliefs did have origins. Anyway, here in this thread I am addressing many of your statements as being Protestant, because most of them are, and most of them evolved from Luther's new church ideas. Yeah, Luther was an misguided zealot, he was anti-Semite, and he suffered from scrupulosity, which explains a lot of his new religion.

I criticize the thought, the faulty theology, but not those who adhere to it. Because while we Catholics have the whole truth in our teachings, that doesn't mean we are the whole best persons! Of course there are many practicing Protestants who are much better Christians than many practicing Catholics. In the same way there are atheists who look way more like Christians than some Christians - because they are loving, merciful, forgiving, charitable - and therefore will arrive at purgatory with a LOT less to learn than many Catholics. So I just want to say, I am debating theology here - not souls!


"Inherently evil" - thats Calvinism, not Catholicism. "Needing outside help" - yes, we will claim that!


No, Catholicism does see the good in people - because God created us so.

Something being centuries older and having sketchy origins doesn't make it more valid by any means. If you cannot find the truth of something, it is invalid unless demonstrated otherwise.

Well, Catholics believe that those who do good will receive reward for it in Heaven, even if they did not believe in God while on earth. Because God is just, and some might have good reason not to believe. They will be judged on how much they obeyed the godly truths they were taught in the place they were in, or that their heart told them. Gods laws are written in our hearts, so, we follow, or we reject.

Also, yes, we know from scripture that Jesus explained that some just make it into the eternal Heaven at the last minute, as in a deathbed confession, like you say.

I am going to link you here to a little booklet by a modern day prophet (or mystic). The reason why I am linking you to it is to show you exactly where atheists stand with God - who does exist, if they want to admit it or not. Anne records the words of Jesus and also some Saints or Apostles and Mary, all pertaining to a particular topic for our times in these booklets. This is "Heaven Speaks to Those Who Have Rejected God". I like that God chose someone like Anne to speak to in a special way, who has had a normal life, and, I found in reading Volume Two, is such a regular person that she even she still had not yet overcome such habits as smoking and swearing - while God was speaking to her in this favored way! She is a real, "everyday" kind of person. Booklets are $2, Volumes are $5, or you can read them free online, in 17 languages.


We venerate her as "God's Masterpiece". Not such backhanded compliment.

LOL. If that was His intention, then it certainly would be incompetent. It is His desire to we learn to overcome sin. But its the "free will" factor that means everything. He does not want us to be puppets that He operates, pulling our strings. He wants our free consent.


Remembering this question of yours is why I wanted to link you to the above booklet. Its one of my favorites, since my Dad, who has passed away, had a "scientific mind" and was not inclined to believe, even though he attended church with my mother, like a good husband. He probably inherited this attitude from his father, who never went to church again after his Episcopalian Church refused to remarry him after divorce. So I have wondered these things myself. And I feel at peace with what is written in that booklet concerning this matter.



Well even an inherently good person does not always do the right thing. For example, out of fear they might be dishonest or cheat. So many factors! But we have a place to work all this out; its Purgatory. Jesus brought Anne there and she wrote about it in her book, Mist of Mercy. I will send you a copy if you want, also anyone who is curious and PM's me I will send them a copy. You will agree with what Anne said, after seeing various parts of it - that if God thinks you need to spend some time there, you won't mind at all. Its a good place.

One of my favorite spiritual books is A Man Called Peter, by Catherine Marshall. Peter was her wonderful husband, a Presbyterian Pastor, who was chaplain for the senate, was popular and well-loved by all, and died rather young and unexpectedly. Its a beautiful love story of the two of them and a beautiful faith story. Catherine had a vision of her husband after he died. He was in a rose garden, tending roses - something he always loved to do but had little time for. He was happy - and if I recall correctly, he was "thinking" some things out, and Catherine noticed he was a little "bewildered", as his death was unexpected, though he was at great peace. This vision Catherine had of her husband imprinted on my mind, and I think God intended it to so I would remember it when I learned more about His Purgatory someday.

When my Dad died a few years back, it left a hole. The day of the funeral, my eldest brother, his namesake, had a dream that seemed more real than a dream, which he told. He saw my Dad walking down a nice empty country road, with a dog wagging his tail beside him, and my Dad turned around to look at him and smiled, and kept walking. It was as good for me as if I had had this dream. I am sure God gave it to us all through him to comfort us. Because my Dads mobility had been severely impaired by Parkinson's for a long time before he died, and he spent his final months confined to the hospital and a nursing home. To walk, free and able, in the fresh air, on a country road, with a dog (he had had a dog growing up as an only child that he loved) with a great sense of peace seems just exactly what he would need after his ordeal.

I do think both these visions are of purgatory.

I've never been able to understand why Christians are upset when people die, especially heathens, but I am of course sorry about your loss which obviously had some effect on you. I do not believe that purgatory is a consoling ideology, especially if it attempts to rationalise what Jesus saw as grave sins as being comparatively minor (e.g. rejecting god).

[Not A Communist Shill]

And yet, Jesus did come back and start a Church, putting His apostles in charge, and giving them authority, and promising that the Holy Spirit would always be with it. It must have been pretty important work considering it was after his Resurrection and before His Ascension. So, yes, to actually be saved its takes the grace of God, not any work of ours. But God wants more of us. Yes, like you say, we need to follow His commandments and follow Him. But that's not so easy. In fact, it can take extraordinary graces to do so; we have so many obstacles, and we fail a lot. And God's ordinary way of pouring down the Extraordinary Graces that we need to do His will is through the Sacraments of His Church. The Church has the tools for the ordinary, easy way to grow in holiness.

Indeed, Jesus said many other things about how you should preach the gospel, but this was not considered central to Christian doctrine e.g. if you were on the point of death.

Well, of course, Jesus at this point in this conversation addressed him with the new name of Peter. We maybe talked about the papacy before, but if you want me to look up links on this providing scriptural support, I will. The "Peter, the Rock on which Jesus built his Church" discussions are really interesting!

This was when Jesus was talking to his disciples (not just Simon), and asked them who do you say I am? Simon of course said "You are [i]the[i]Christ, the Son of the living God.” i.e. they were talking about Jesus himself. Jesus then replied (and this is how the emphasis would have been in Ramaic language):

“Blessed are you (singular), Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you (plural, i.e. directed at the disciples) that you are a pebble and on this (i.e. Jesus himself) rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you (plural) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (plural) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

When Jesus was referring to the pebble, he was not referring to Simon, but the faith of all his disciples in the identity of Jesus as the Christ. The words for pebble (little rock) and bedrock (large rock) in Aramaic are quite distinct. The other passages in the bible emphasise that Jesus was considered The rock, not any mortal. Especially considering that this passage ends with "Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ." which makes no sense in the context of founding a new church (Jesus' emphasis on spreading the Word came later, e.g. on the day of Pentecost)...also, considering this was before Simon had denied Jesus three times: it would not make sense to say this about Simon, at least not at this time. Finally, it should also be understood in the context of Jesus saying that even faith as small as the mustard seed is a great thing: but Jesus is very much The Rock, and his disciples are the pebbles.

Because (also quoted above) the Saints in Heaven are equal to the angels, and are His sons (according to Luke 20:35-36). And the saints are one with God, and that He has given them HIS glory (John 17:20-23). So yes, being equal to the angels, they know what we are going through. They have "made it", and they want us to make it, and they want to assist us with their prayers. They are with God now, and they love Him, and they know what He cares about, and God's goals are their goals! And God lets them help! Does an omnipotent God need help? No, but He likes help because He loves. Its like a Mom who makes cookies with her 3 year old's help. Can Mom do it better and faster? Yes. But the point for Mom is the interaction with her child, and the child's delight in being allowed to help. In the same way, God uses the Saints help, and He uses our help. And this is a mystery, but I believe it is the truth: God actually needs our help. I think that is because He is Love.

Again, Christian doctrine is that Christians are saints before they get to heaven, and that a living saint is more proactive than a dead one. Additionally, the prayer of a penitent sinner is as valid as that of a saint.

I don't think it is fruitful to talk of omnipotent beings? Does an omnipotent being need help? No. Does they need to like anything? No. Does they need to love? No. Do they have any character whatsoever? No.

An omnipotent being cannot be just and merciful and be loving all at the same time. An ideal omnipotent being would be [i]just[i], not merciful as to be merciful would be to disproportionately "love" some people more than others. To love equally as an omnipotent being would not be love in any meaningful sense either, any more than it would be hate.

One way we can know about what the Saints in Heaven are like is that there are some who became basically Saints while they were yet on earth. They so completely died to self ("so that it is no longer I who lives, but Christ in me") that we have some evidence of what the Saints are like and what they can do. There are so many amazing ones! Its hard to pick! But, take Padre Pio - like him, we can expect to be able to bi-locate - be in more than one place at once. Also, he could read souls. It was impossible to lie to him in Confession. And if you mistakenly left something out, he would tell you. People knew this was a supernatural grace, so they would stand in line for days for confession, and Padre Pio, servant of God, would give himself up for 15-19 hours a day at this. There are so many different amazing graces that God gives to those who love and obey Him here on earth, and Saints are witnesses to those gifts and a forecast of what we'll be like in Heaven.

[true and informative stories about confession with Padre Pio on this page (scroll down to the "fireworks"): http://caccioppoli.com/Close%20encou...0Weddings.html

{I am editign to add, that some years after Padre Peio was buried, they exhumed his body, which was found to be graced with incorruptibility. Some (a very low %) of Saints are, and reamian so, for centuries. I htought I woudl mention that since I was discussing Saints with you. Beign exhumed and found incorrupt is not a reason to be named a Saint. But it is evidence that calls for a formal investigation including the required documented and proven miracles in order to see if the person can be deemed a Saint). Here is Padre Pio today:https://www.google.com/search?q=padr...w=1024&bih=673
See also: http://listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-...rrupt-corpses/

I prefer better ways of determining the merits of someone. I believe it is possible to tell if someone is a decent sort before they die rather than resorting to after.

I also know from archaeology (and general interest) that the bodies of unsavoury people also undergo this comparatively high levels of preservation. It happens even in cases of pagans from many thousands of years ago. It should be of no surprise that bodies often kept in favourable conditions, such as a dry stone church, or three layers of coffins including one made of sealed lead for example can be preserved for a long period time. It should also be no surprise that a cult that worships death and venerates holy saints would find a small percentage of bodies being in such a preserved state: what other organisation digs up the dead on a regular basis a few decades after death? Bodies in a cemetery for a thousand years in acidic conditions by comparison would not do so well. A few members of royalty and of nobility have been dug up historically and had similar stories, although they are less common because there are less of them and because the was no systemic historical precedent for doing so (generally, it happened on the whim of a later-day king or emperor, to glimpse the dead or to move them elsewhere). If you wish me to give examples I can do so.

A lot of thoughtful points here. I'll do my best with a Catholic response!

Yes, people are inherently good but because evil is in the world and we have free will (as well as a tendency to be drawn to sin due to the stain of Original Sin that we inherited) we still have a struggle. We also have choice - free will is very important to God; He give us choice and he is no Indian-giver. We get true choice and the consequences of our choices come with that. So we must be wise (and God says if anyone seeks wisdom He will give it to us generously). We are not as intelligent as the angels and we do not have their deep knowledge and eternal perspective, so our choices, unlike theirs, are changeable. We have a lifetime (most of us) to get it right. And if we still don't get it right, our Merciful God gives us some time after we die to get it right! However, we do experience painful remorse for those times we knowingly rejected God and His will.

I am not sure that not believing in God is a sin. In some cases it most certainly would not be, like, if someone had been taught a truly bad and wrong view of God, it woudl be natural. Only God can know the heart, and truly know what a person has internalized and what influenced them. But God gives people many chances to know Him. He knows people completely and most deeply, better than they know themselves, and He knows how to work at encouraging them to go the way that is best for them. As that linked booklet attests, God is generous and Merciful and if there is any small part of a person open to God, God rewards that. One risks great regret after they die for how they spent their life, though. And also one risks hell. Because truly reject God, and you could begin to also reject good. Do that for too long, and you can change, and no longer desire good at all. And then you might completely reject good at the end, which would be very bad for you. It could end in hell.

Yes, a truly good person does the right thing with no expectation of reward. But God tells us there is a reward for us in Heaven. And He encourages us not to look for a reward here. (the way I see it, I expect my good works to go unacknowledged. Sometimes I feel embarrassed when they are, and sometimes I feel it is a temptation to pride. Other times, if feels like a consolation from God. That God promises rewards for us tells me that they are something we sort of need, that we are designed for them. Also we know that the surprise rewards are best. And I think God savors surprising us with good gifts like a parent savors the same.

....I learned once when I was very young that sneaking into Mom's closet and peeking at all the yet-unwrapped gifts is very fun and so clandestinely exciting, but wow, it sure ruins the fun of Christmas Day (which is why that one time was the only time!).


No, he doesn't damn people for choosing to sin in this life. He totally understands. Heaven is full of sinners who have committed every kind of terrible crime! You name it. Of course its true what you say, that a supernatural that causes suffering woudl be terribly evil - oh, yeah, there is one, and his minions, but I won't honor him with a name mention. God loves us, and while His rules may seem to us sometimes just too much, too unreasonable, especially when our culture says some of those things are just fine, and they just doesn't reason out for us, He only has our good in mind, our happiness in this life and the next. He made us, He designed us, and He knows what will hurt us. Obedience to what He calls us to will bring us happiness, and joy, even if at first it seems to only rob us of it.

Disobedience will bring us trouble. It becomes worse for us when we know its wrong, and we keep ignoring our conscience. If we keep going down that road, it can end in perdition. Because we can start liking sin and hating good. We don't want to be set in those ways when we are old.

So often I have heard great Catholic theologians explains that all the people in hell want to be there. They hate good, and they do not want to be there with God who is All Good, so they choose hell. They hate it there but they want to be there. And it is hell. I know people like to say it is the only fun place so they want to go there, but its not fun and they will not like being there.

(Misunderstanding is not going to get one to hell. It has to be actual rejection of good, and rejection of God, the true God, with knowledge of who He is.)

I am aware that god is to allow many sinners into heaven, regardless of how many murders and war crimes they have committed. This merely further represents how god is clearly unjust. If you do the crime, you should do the time. You shouldn't get mercy and eternal reward when you have committed crimes against humanity, and decent folks shouldn't have to hang around with them. It is because of religion that such a psychopathic philosophy (if you can call it philosophy) has become normalised in society: this is deeply damaging.

Yes, there is no poverty in Heaven. This statement of Jesus is because Judas Iscariot did not like Mary Magdalene pouring expensive oil on his feet in repentance and to bless Jesus before his Sacrifice. He wasn't saying the poor should not be cared for, he was saying Mary's act of love was okay. The point was that in contrast to the poor, they would very soon not be with Him.

He said other things about the poor, too, like when you feed them, you are actually feeding Him. People gave Him money all the time. He immediately gave it to the poor. He lived poor. His message on how to treat the poor was clear and His response to the rash Judas Iscariot's complaint does not minimize it. Again, with scripture, context is vital.


Well, that's a worthy goal, and it sounds like they have already made some progress. I do not think you can compare the Church's giving, which is extremely generous and constant certainly surpasses that of the UN. Its not something I keep account of or would enjoy looking up but I will if you want. You are not the first to make the oft-repeated and highly exaggerated "billions of riches" claim, of course you have heard those accusations stated as if they are fact and are repeating it here. I have heard responses to such highly exaggerated accusations which were satisfactory to me, but I cannot remember what they are. I wonder how much charitable giving the people do that tout this complaint? Are they giving their "widow's mite"? I know many Catholics who do. And Protestants, I should add. Really, it is only among Christians that personally I have seen people who choose to live very modestly so that they can give to the poor regularly. It is something I have never personally seen in action outside of Christianity. Yes, I have heard stories of the very rich giving generous gifts, living large with lots of leftover to share big. And that is good. But not as personally impressive to me as a family living small every day so they can give big, regularly.

It seems a rather low blow to start implying that Catholics are somehow superior in terms of the charity they give despite their poor record over many centuries. If the church's giving is even more generous than the UN despite the UN actually having contributing something of value (and without causing various problems e.g. by encouraging people not to use condoms, as well as continuing the spread of superstition into the 21st century), where are the results? The secular world is far more than the UN: consider that the average tax rate as a proportion of GDP in OECD countries is about 35%: which goes to supporting the disadvantage, whether directly through credit benefits, or indirectly by building roads and providing a semi-workable capitalist system, and people still give independently give to charities of their own on top of this.

[Eliza Thomason]

Okay, I am going to make an attempt at shorter answers!

ok, perhaps this is pedantic, I would say that any book from the time of Christ that is considered valid (and not apocrypha) by a sect would be considered a New Testament book: because it is considered part of the testament of Christ and as valid.

Its really not pedantic. My husband said the same thing. It was never, ever considered a New Testament book. New Testament is after Christ. . These books instead were part of Jesus' Holy Scripture. We know this because they were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for just one. Maccabees is Jewish history between the old and the New Testament and it is quoted by New Testament writes as scripture (for detail on this, see that first link).

The early church has absolutely nothing to do with Luther.

What I am saying is the early church considered it scripture.

they simply were not unambiguously agreed upon the first centuries of the church, and there were great variations in what was considered central.

That link shows how 1st century New Testament writers quoted it, so it is clear they considered it part of the canon.

As it is, to say that these texts were part of "Jesus' Bible" and then quote as evidence dates in the 4th century, a good three centuries after Jesus allegedly walked the Earth (although a little less if he died in Kashmir) is completely wrong.

Well, first of all, 3 centuries is not that long. Consider how many centuries the Jews kept faith to every jot and tittle of their faith traditions, which, as we can see in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, did not change over many, many centuries. These people knew how to hold on to traditions, and not change them one bit!

Second of all, I quoted that 367A.D. because it includes the 73 books! The same 73 books Christians ALWAYS used. The "66 books" idea came many, many centuries later. That's 16 centuries later! More suspect than a mere 4 centuries later, don't you think?

As far as it being into the 4th century that the list is made, there is something you need to know. There is no historical reason whatsoever to think those 73 books were suddenly decided on for the first time in 367A.D. Those books were highly likely to have been long accepted at that time. What you probably don't know is that the Catholic Church never declared a thing a Dogma until centuries after they had been practicing and holding fast - very fast - to tradition that no one ever questioned, that was just always accepted as truth. Then much later new folks came along with new ideas. Only then, in order to defend the long-held tradition, Councils would take place to make the old, long-practiced tradition into Dogma (a belief that will never change), in order to protect these long-held traditions for future generations. We have a long history of working it that way. Centuries upon centuries. No council ever made up new ideas. The job of the council is to protect the faith handed down by the Apostles. And that is what the Councils have always done.

In addition, the level of evidence in terms of attribution and provenance even of books like the four gospels is bad enough

I can't agree at all with you here!

... Deuteronomy is very clear, you should not communicate with the dead either. This is clear because it says you should not obtain omens from the dead and you should also not call up the dead:

No, that is not clear. Its simply a new recent-century Protestant interpretation that the the Communion of Saints is like calling up the Dead for information like in Deuteronomy.

...I do not consider Revelations to be a reliable book for Christian beliefs (although it is a moderately good inspiration for musicians): it is an appendage that it is an entirely out of character with the rest of the bible, and has millions of interpretations.

Ah, you are throwing out the great Apostle John's book? And the blessing, too - "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it". I personally would not throw out something as no good just because I don't understand it. I withhold judgment, knowing I might understand it later... .

In regards Luke, Jesus is clearly being inconsistent with himself, although there is nothing that says that the dead cannot talk with each other, only that you should not communicate with the dead..

I see a pattern here - if it does not make immediate sense to you, or if it does not seem consistent with your ideas, then you judge it faulty, and not your own understanding. I don't do that. Its okay with me to leave something open that doesn't make sense until I later get more understanding. .. Maybe its p vs. j...

We have already discussed the Transfiguration of Jesus, which was notably a miracle for the Transfiguration, not for the resurrection. The Christian view of the Old Testament is that Moses had a covenant with God, but had a major falling out with him immediately before his death: he was a repentant sinner, but not sufficient for God to raise him into heaven upon his death. So what makes you think that God would raise Moses into heaven in the new testament, before the fulfilment of the new covenant?.

I guess because Moses had a few centuries to think things over... .. he eventually likely realized God knew what He was doing after all. As far as not-sufficient - God doesn't tell us His criteria for sufficiency. Anyway, Moses - he was rather set-apart, don't you think? I mean - horns!

The prays of the saints in Revelations have nothing whatsoever to do with dead saints interceding on our behalf. It says absolutely nothing on the matter.

I have no idea which or if Revelations verses refer to prayers to the saints. Not sure if its relevant anyway.

Jesus was clear that all who accepted him as their Saviour were his saints, and that saints should pray while they were alive,

Yes

as they were unable to do so when they were dead.

No

i.e. any prayers whether by you or on your behalf, are by the living, not dead saints.

No

... The importance of the New Covenant as you should know is that Jesus is the sacrifice for all of humanity, for all their sins, and he is the new Temple through which prayers should be made. Say what you like, but in John, Jesus is attributed as saying rather to the point that "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Yes

Bowing down to images of Mary would be considered blasphemy in the Torah:

No

[there] is only one God in Judaism and Christianity.

Yes. And you forgot your capital G there (But I fixed it for you! ).

You only have to look at a history of papal pronouncements to see that this cannot be the case: there are numerous accounts of popes contradicting each other.

No

Don't you consider the possibility that, as your mortal life, in my view, is all that you have, I am not merely arguing, but I am concerned that you live what life you have well? If what you believe is true, then you should not worry about your mortal life except where you worry about whether you are able to save as many mortal souls as possible.

No, I absolutely do not consider that this mortal life is all I have. Perhaps because faith grows? God has answered so many prayers. He has made His presence known. He has given me so many gifts, such consolations when I needed it. Our Lord truly is a friend closer than a brother. It must be so lonely not to know this. But if a person does NOT want to know God, and does not WANT to know if God is real, then God does not go where He is not invited. But, yet, He waits - in Revelation we read that He stands at the door and knocks, because He wants to come in and sup with us. He is the Hound of Heaven, so, though rejected, He will keep pursuing.

Yes, I am very concerned with how I live this life. By the grace of God I hope to have as few regrets as it is possible for me when my time in this life is up. As to worrying about how many mortal souls I save - no - one could go crazy doing that! Its not my job to save souls, its God's. However, I can help Him by offering up my sufferings, and my day, and then He uses that to save souls. It is my job to witness; to not be ashamed to say where my hope comes from when asked. My goal for this mortal life would be closer union with God so that I can know His will day to day. And to try to keep evaluating my own life and actions. And being as much like Jesus as possible - which is not possible without supernatural grace! And that means asking for help to be more loving, more merciful, and less judging, more kind, more patient, and wise. Also for the gifts of the Holy spirit.

There is no theology grounds for purgatory in the bible.

There's tons!

At best, it was a money making scam the church had for centuries. At worse, it was dogma that held back civilisation for centuries.

This is stupid.

The Bible is clear is that once you are dead, you alone are responsible for the life you have lived and the sins you have committed while alive.

I can't think of where this is in the Bible.Your meaning is not clear, and its unfamiliar.

Praying for a lesser punishment for a loved one goes completely against this.

This "punishing god" you speak of - I don't know him/her. Our Christian God is loving and merciful. He loves us so much, that rather than "punish us", as you say, He sent His only Son to atone for all of our sins, so that we would not have to pay for them ourselves.

I quoted Job amongst other sources as evidence that Jewish theology held that those who were dead, between now and judgement day, are "asleep". I didn't provide them as evidence that the bible said that the dead cannot be risen from the dead.

I see: You were referring to:
"So man lies down and does not rise.
Till the heavens are no more,
They will not awake
Nor be roused from their sleep."

Like I said, its more poetic to call a dead person "asleep" than say dead. And you can see, Job's words here are poetic. A dead person appears to be sleeping, but you cannot rouse him, see? Its quite perfectly clear to see the context here is not Job trying to explain what happens to the state of a soul from death to judgment Day! You have fallen prey to the Fundamentalist Christian's error of supporting vast theological ideas with miscellaneous misplaced verses verses strung together - verses that are taken quite out of context. You cannot ignore context.

The bible does not say that Mary is in heaven.

Are you saying that if a thing is not in the Bible, then its not true?

and there is no evidence that Mary was without sin or that she escaped death, as that would suggest.

There is so much evidence! Explore and learn. If you want to. But its the truth. Its the God's honest truth.

Equally, when it is said that someone is "filled with the Holy Spirit", it does not mean you automatically go to heaven.

Okay.

Canonising saints in such a way is not scriptural, for two reasons.

I gave you the scripture. Jesus gave the Church authority to decide things and said it would be agreed in Heaven. That's some serious authority!

1) only god knows for sure who are his saints and 2) according to Christian doctrine, all Christians are Saints.

Yes, its a different use of the same word. Also our Church teaches we are all priests, as scripture says. However, capitalize Priest and Saint and a particular specialized meaning applies.

[This comment: Re: highly documentized miracles: woman who was born with no pupils - blind, of course - who asked for prayers, and she was made to see. And, as she still has no pupils, medical doctors confirm that this is certainly miraculous and cannot be explained by science. Then there was a nun cured of Parkinson's, the long illness and its total cure all properly documented.]
Even if the event occurred,

It did occur. Its crazy far-fetched to suggest that it did not.

something that "cannot be explained by science" is not a miracle. Science is the study of nature: if an event occurred, it is within the realm of science, not of miracles.

Wow. That kind of faith in science just blows my mind. It seems fairy-tale like to have that much faith in science to explain everything that matters! I hope you read that booklet I linked, "Heaven Speaks to Those Who Have Rejected God", because its interesting how Jesus addresses those who, as I see it, hide behind science. I think Our Lady says it best when she says, "Dearest little child of heaven, you are not as intellectually advanced as you think."

The objection to purgatory is not explicitly a Protestant one.

But primarily. However, I think this is often due to a misunderstanding of what it is. Can I send you a highly readable short little book on Purgatory? I will find a way to get it to you so that you can retain your anonymity - I have an idea of how to do that.

Jesus in the New Testament made it clear that he died for all the sins of humanity: to suggest that people go to purgatory for petty sins is not a Christian doctrine.

No, you are misunderstanding. It is not to pay for sins! Jesus paid for our sins. God forgives, God loves. We don't pay. Jesus paid. It is too late for me to try to explain this, but I will create a post sometimes soon explaining purgatory. Quick and short: Because of our humanity, because of our weakness, because of cultural influence to do things that are wrong that truly hurt us and hurt others, we sin. When we die we see God and we see how great and how extreme his love is for us, and we see our whole life flash before us, sort of. Every single action, and our choices, often made from weakness and human frailty, and we see things we did and said hurt ourselves and how they hurt others. That hurt can deeply affect others who in turn affect others. Like a terrible ripple, our sins can be, and some day we will see the whole truth of how we have lived our lives and how we affected others, and will know what we could have done differently, we will know when we ignored the right. Basically, we see the whole truth of our lives. And we need to. Because the truth sets us free. We ALL have fallen short of the more glorified way we should have lived. ALL of us. So we see it. And we have regrets. We need to feel sorrow for that. We need to come to grips with our choices, in such contrast to the loving and good God whom we now know - and its rather a shock to know Him and the wonderful extent of his very personal love for us. And suddenly, we do. There is a wonderful peace in that! However, reconciling that and our knowledge of how we purposely rejected Him and His will for us causes regret. We need time to ourselves to work out that regret and come to terms with it. We want to do that and to be in that place to do it. Its a safe place to be. We want to do that work, and God provides a place, a perfect place. Even today in psychology we realize we cannot stuff things inside, we need to look at them and come to grips with them. Many people do this on earth and for some of us there is very little if anything to do of that work when they die and they can move up very quickly, says Jesus (often the day of the funeral). But many people especially these days don't do this at all - they never examine their life or their conscience, they don't even have quiet, they always have noise, so how can they think or listen for God's voice in their hearts? They cannot because they have no quiet. Also in Purgatory a very important thing is that though we will know God's total love and acceptance as soon as we are there. And we have to come to accept and love ourselves in spite of all our errors. That is a big task of purgatory, and we need to get through this before we are ready to move on with others into the Kingdom of God. Its not a bad place. Its a place God provides for us to do the work we need to do.

Okay, I know you are going to say, "Where is that in the Bible" - but don't bother! That's your own extra-Biblical belief! Because no where in the Bible does it say that everything you need to know about God and Heaven and Christianity is in the Bible, and if that its not in there its not true, or, you don't need to know it. Nope. That's not in there. So, "Bible-alone" makes no sense! If you want to believe that, go ahead. But you won't impose it on me.

Also I am not trying to convince you of the truth of Purgatory. Its true whether you want to believe it or not. I just want to you to know what we actually believe of Purgatory. It is not a place of punishment. You have been mis-informed on that.

You go to hell, the general absence of god, if you do not accept Jesus as your Saviour.

That not what Catholic believe. Not the way you say it. No.

That is all Jesus had to say on the matter.

So you say.

Considering that Jesus only spent three days in "hell" for the collected sins of humanity throughout history

No, Jesus did not pay for our sins with three days in hell. No. He paid for our sins on the cross and by His death. Not hell. No.

, do you really think that something as petty as purgatory would be a Christian doctrine?

Yes. Something so beautiful, that is the mercy of God, yes.

________
My attempt at short answers, hmm, not sure how good. This is only responses to one of your posts - there are two more! I do not know how you fire them off so fast, but I can tell you, I put a lot of thought into these answers (even the "Yes" and "No"'s!). If you respond to this, I will probably ignore it (at least ignore answering it) until I can get to those other two....

[Eliza Thomason]

Again, nothing to do with Catholics versus Protestants. It was (and still is) long-held Jewish belief, including by Jesus.

I'll ask my husband this one. He is taking a nap right now. There may have been some factions of Judaism that have held this long-held view but it is not their dogma. It is certainly true that the Jews have had many differing ideas on what happens after death.

Actually, your point about saints being resurrected in Jerusalem on the day of Jesus' death would probably be held to be true by Protestant biblical literalists also (thus they would believe that the man who died with Jesus would have resurrected that day).

Just the literalists?

No, there is a very clear distinction between when talking of the soul (which is 'asleep'), and talking since the period of time when someone physically died for example.

Yes, you are speaking of the idea you have accepted that when we die we fall into a long, long, comatose sleep, for centuries upon centuries, whereupon we are completely inaccessible to all the world and all the Saints of Heaven.

Really, long ago, I wondered the same (what happens when you die), and when I asked those I knew and respected, I got that answer. And it is not a satisfactory answer. And its a lonely, lonely answer if you have lost a loved one and the theology of all those round you makes you question if that will person made it to Heaven, and if they are gone from you for all of eternity. There is absolutely no comfort in the thought that you will get to find out many, many hundreds or thousands of years in the future on Judgment Day if you ever get to see them again or not. Nope, no comfort in that at all. But it was the only answer offered me at the time. And it left me sad, until a brief but profound spiritual experience told me this was not how God did things, even though I had no theology around me to support what I knew to be true.

Do you ever think to reconsider the long comatose sleep idea? I mean, long comatose sleeps are the exception rather than the rule here on earth. Why would God do something completely different and unfamiliar when we die? As if our time between death and the great Judgment Day doesn't matter, like its something we just have to get through, so we are in a paralyzed sleep till then.

I say that because when I read visions of Heaven, like in Anne's visions shown her by Jesus, or when we read peoples experiences who have died and come back to life, besides having a "particular judgment" - like I told you about, which is the Catholic view of individual judgments at the point of death before the one big Judgment Day - at the moment, where our life flashes before us and we see the truth of our lives in the light of the loving merciful and perfectly just God, they always go to a Heaven which is a place that is not unlike earth. There are flowers, hills, grass, mountains, landscapes, cities, towns, parks - only it is so much more astoundingly beautiful that everyone struggles to explain just how it is so much better, even thought they try. And they all mourn coming back here, and long to be back there. So it seems true that Heaven will be like this earth - but better. The things we have learned to love here on earth we will find there.

but then why the emphasis on the less miraculous Transfiguration of Jesus?

not sure what you are saying here.

The saints who rose at the death of Jesus were in Jerusalem, and would probably have accepted Jesus as their Savior (the new covenant). Otherwise there would have been dead people walking about throughout the whole region. As it is, no other source records such an event.

What source would there be? The Pharisees, who were shown beyond any doubt that not only did all of the earth tremble at their deed, but Heaven as well?

Only if it is scriptural and not laboured ten page analyses of what a single word may or may not have meant in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic.

Do you remember what this is about?

"There is no such institute on earth" - what do you mean here?

No such institute that can hold itself together and consistent for 2000 years and have an unbroken line of succession of its leaders all these years. That is miraculous in itself. And no Pope has ever taught an infallible doctrine on faith and morals that has ever contradicted with that of any Pope before him. So that each Pope has less leeway than the one before him. Its just not like the nature of man.... its just not like any other institution run by humans. There just must be something else behind it.

Like the Holy Spirit?

In any case, Jesus himself and his disciples believed Jesus to be the Rock...the name Peter only means "pebble" or "little stone" by comparison, and you wouldn't build a structure on that. Jesus also never referred to Simon as Peter, and all references to "Peter", "Simon Peter", "Simon who was known as Peter" were later additions based on the infamous misunderstanding of this verse.

No, the "pebble" analogy is the infamous one. It is a brand new Protestant invention, divorced from every other interpretation for centuries upon centuries before it, and its silly - really. really silly. Jesus saying: "Peter! You are the PEBBLE!" ...Pebble? Really? Oh, thank you, Jesus!

Read some scholarly Catholic interpretation of it, and what they have to say about the scholarly work of the Protestant's who defend their "pebble" theory.

There is Greek, and Aramaic. There's your clue to the misinterpretation. Do you think Jesus spoke Greek the Galilean fisherman Peter?

... Also, Joseph and Mary would be the first and only married couple in the whole bible to have never had sex..

Just because a thing is not discussed in Old Testament Scripture does not mean it never existed. No. Just as we have men and woman in every century who pledge their lives to God and abstain from the marriage and the pleasures of marriage in order to more fully pledge their lives to God, so also did a few devout Jews in every generation, including the time of Joseph and Mary. I am with the school (and the mystics) who say Mary and Joseph, before they even met, were so all for God alone that they had already pledged their chaste lives to God alone, when God instead called them to marry, and they obeyed, knowing not why. So when the angel told Mary that she would conceive, she so surprised she actually questioned the angel. She had already pledged herself to know no man. So how could she become pregnant? Since she was betrothed, the idea getting pregnant should not have surprised her. That she had already pledged herself to be "for God alone", in order to serve God completely and without distraction (as Paul says later in the New Testament is a good and admirable thing) is the reason for being surprised at a thing that is not surprising for a normal betrothed person. And Mary called herself the handmaid/servant of the Lord. This is some of the evidence that she was already committed to being a complete servant.


And even had Joseph, instead, done as some (not me) believe, and was previously married and widowed, really, one must consider they were not an ordinary couple. She was impregnated by the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE! Do you think Joseph was anxious to say, "I'm next, my turn!"? Do you think that Mary had two spouses, simultaneously? Or did the Holy Spirit divorce her after impregnating her, having done as many cads do, used a woman for what he needed, and then left, saying, here, Joseph, now you impregnate my holy spouse? Do you not think that, in their shoes, you might be distracted from your own earthly joys when your Son is your Lord and the Savior of all mankind, and God has entrusted you to raise Him?

These are the astounding realities of the life of Christ that people contemplated for centuries, when they had fewer distractions than we do. More people used to imitate Mary, and take such wonderful things of God into their hearts and contemplate them quietly. And we reap the rich inheritance of such contemplations.

....You think in a passage that mentions Jesus (including his role) numerous times that Mary was really considered sinless?

Yes. Mary was exceptional.

.In addition, Matthew 1:24-25 says "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus."

You're killin' me. Subteigh. These are ALL Protestant arguments that have been around forever and they are all soundly and scripturally refuted. You have been SO indoctrinated! I guess I was once, too.

Here, that "Till" thing is a ridiculous argument that holds no water. You can put it away for good after you read this. The whole short article you really should read - its full of scripture to punch holes in all your "brothers and sisters of Mary" arguments you have been drilled in. But if you want the fast short answer, you can scroll down halfway to the title, "Till Then": http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...tual-virginity

Actually, the angel did refer to her as Mary, and saying that someone is blessed to have been chosen by god to bear his son does not mean she had been given her own title.

Title: "Full of Grace". The first words of the angel who just left the throne of God, for the most important announcement for the sake of all of mankind? "Hail, Full of Grace." A new name. He did not say, "Hail, Mary, Full of Grace." (we add in the "Mary" when we repeat those wondrous words of the angel in prayer).

.Also, whether the angel is eternal or not has no bearing on whether the angel's message was eternally valid...especially seeing as the angel made no mention of anything being eternally true. You can say a person is blessed without it being eternally true.

Angels never lie.

. Consider for example instances in the bible where god himself changes his mind,

Out of Mercy He lets His people change His course by prayer. He never lies.

.
or those instances where prophets and cities and disciples are blessed one day, but not the next, as well as the number of times god hardened the Pharaoh's heart and caused great suffering before softening it again, in what can only be described as psychopathic evil.

Try to think of it in a different way. You conclusion is probably wrong when a God who is all-good and all-merciful,. and all-just does something that seems out of character. You can assume, and judge God Himself to be not what he says he is, or you can assume that you could be fallible in your thought. Hmm. Something to think about.

.Something being centuries older and having sketchy origins doesn't make it more valid by any means. If you cannot find the truth of something, it is invalid unless demonstrated otherwise.

I think it wise to have regard for the wisdom of the centuries.

I've never been able to understand why Christians are upset when people die, especially heathens, .

Its just human. We love, we lose, we grieve.

but I am of course sorry about your loss which obviously had some effect on you..

Thank you. Have you not really suffered big loss and grief yet? We all do at some point...

I do not believe that purgatory is a consoling ideology, especially if it attempts to rationalise what Jesus saw as grave sins as being comparatively minor (e.g. rejecting god).

I think you would find it really consoling if you know what it was. It doesn't rationalize sins. Jesus paid for our sins, even the very gravest ones - all of them.

But yes, there is a comparative difference in sins; there are grave sins and lesser ones. We refer to them as mortal and venial sins. The mortal ones are the ones that hurt us and hurt others the most. But God is just and merciful. He sees the whole person, and He judges fairly, taking into consideration everything, and we will readily agree with all His judgments. In these times, I understand His mercy is very, very great. We have so many mitigating circumstances for grave sins. But it does not mean that these sins do not damage us any less.

[Eliza Thomason]

Indeed, Jesus said many other things about how you should preach the gospel, but this was not considered central to Christian doctrine e.g. if you were on the point of death.

Yes - you go to the essentials at such a time.

This was when Jesus was talking to his disciples (not just Simon), and asked them who do you say I am? Simon of course said "You are [i]the[i]Christ, the Son of the living God.” i.e. they were talking about Jesus himself. Jesus then replied (and this is how the emphasis would have been in Aramaic language):
“Blessed are you (singular), Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you (plural, i.e. directed at the disciples) that you are a pebble and on this (i.e. Jesus himself) rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you (plural) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (plural) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

When Jesus was referring to the pebble, he was not referring to Simon, but the faith of all his disciples in the identity of Jesus as the Christ. The words for pebble (little rock) and bedrock (large rock) in Aramaic are quite distinct. The other passages in the bible emphasise that Jesus was considered The rock, not any mortal. Especially considering that this passage ends with "Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ." which makes no sense in the context of founding a new church (Jesus' emphasis on spreading the Word came later, e.g. on the day of Pentecost)...also, considering this was before Simon had denied Jesus three times: it would not make sense to say this about Simon, at least not at this time. Finally, it should also be understood in the context of Jesus saying that even faith as small as the mustard seed is a great thing: but Jesus is very much The Rock, and his disciples are the pebbles.

The old Pebble theory! That is really a silly theory when you think of it. You have to actually decide that Jesus was speaking nonsense. Does anyone ever call anyone a "pebble"? Does it mean anything? Pebble? That's why I say its silly. Its also bad scholarship - which is the natural result when you start with the answer ("The Catholicity of that verse is too hard to swallow, so, it must be saying something other than what it clearly and plainly says) and find some way, no matter how far the distance from reality, in order to back up your own preconceived notions..

You find many clear refutations of the infamous pebble theory all over the web, but I'll link you one. This one, by Karl Keating, a well-knows Catholic Apologist, will serve.

Again, Christian doctrine is that Christians are saints before they get to heaven,

Yes

and that a living saint is more proactive than a dead one.

No

Additionally, the prayer of a penitent sinner is as valid as that of a saint.

Yes

I don't think it is fruitful to talk of omnipotent beings? Does an omnipotent being need help? No. Does they need to like anything? No. Does they need to love? No. Do they have any character whatsoever? No.

An omnipotent being cannot be just and merciful and be loving all at the same time.

God's ways are not our ways. What makes sense to us is not always God's sense. What seems impossible to us is not impossible to God.

God is omnipotent. And perfectly just. And completely loving, and completely merciful. All those things, in perfection.

An ideal omnipotent being would be [i]just[i], not merciful as to be merciful would be to disproportionately "love" some people more than others. To love equally as an omnipotent being would not be love in any meaningful sense either, any more than it would be hate.

I do not see how you arrive at this idea. It doesn't make sense to me. Can you give some example to help explain your meaning?

I prefer better ways of determining the merits of someone. I believe it is possible to tell if someone is a decent sort before they die rather than resorting to after.

Yes, we can very often judge accurately what sort of a person someone is. Some of us are better at this than others. Yet even the best of us can be fooled at times. And some people are really good at fooling.

But then, sometimes, we misjudge. God doesn't do that. His justice is perfect. One reason is His omniscience - He knows the heart. We don't. In addition, He knows every single thing there is to know about a person's circumstances that can compel them to do the things they do. We don't. So, we can misjudge.

I have to think that having gone through the battering on earth of people continually misjudging us, it will be a wonderful relief to be judged fairly and justly when we see God.

I also know from archaeology ...unsavoury people ... high levels of preservation.... pagans from many thousands of years ago. It should be of no surprise that bodies often kept in favourable conditions, such as a dry stone church, or three layers of coffins...royalty and of nobility have been dug up historically and had similar...examples I can do so.

No, don't bother, they will be the same old ones, and they are not the same, like Lenin's obvious wax fake, and many other differing phenomena or machinations of no compare. Note many Incorruptibles were kept in highly unfavorable conditions, like dear St. Cuthbert I read about this week, whose body the faithful hauled all over England for centuries to escape persecutions and exiles. Also the same for many others, especially the many-centuries-old ones. And just look at Padre Pio; you have to wonder - how can this be? And they are unique to other phenomena - the hair grows, the nails grow. Their clothes corrupt - they have to put new ones on, and the bodies are still flexible! Its not explainable by science. But I don't hoard up the scientific detail in my brain when I don't need to, I am already convinced. If you are interested in the scientific details of these Incorruptible bodies of some Saints, and what exactly sets it apart for other so-called phenomena, the best source for that would be Joan Carroll Cruz's book, The Incorruptibles. You can get a used copy for $3! I am confident that any "what about him/her" that you could come up with is thoroughly discussed, with all the accompanying science and references, there. You can learn all about it if you are interested.

Or, you can consider your ideas must be right and look no further.

I am aware that god is to allow many sinners into heaven, regardless of how many murders and war crimes they have committed. This merely further represents how god is clearly unjust. If you do the crime, you should do the time. You shouldn't get mercy and eternal reward when you have committed crimes against humanity,

God is not unjust.

Your idea of a punishing God is not the Christian one.

Re: Murderer's and War crimes - or any other most horrible thing we can think of. Some will certainly be there by the grace of God. I have reflected that when people get to the point where they do really, truly horrible evil things intentionally and habitually, they have often gotten to the point of habit where they HATE good and love evil. I think its this type that often, when they see God, when they die, Who is all-good, and Who would yet give them another chance to repent and be saved, still then turn away - because they don't want to be around goodness - they hate goodness. They prefer instead to be where there is not any goodness, no matter how horrible it is, forever. Its their actual choice.

But for others of those that have done terrible things in life, yes, they will be there. But every single one will have repented. Every single one will have seen the consequences of what they did and every single one will have deeply mourned their sin, so deeply that we cannot begin to imagine the pain of such mourning and such regret. And they will mourn and regret for as long as they see fit, until the extent of it has been accomplished. And they will learn to love. And they will learn to forgive themselves, already having full knowledge of God's complete love and full forgiveness of them. And they will love God, and they will love others. And they will be shining examples of the awesome mercy of God.

and decent folks shouldn't have to hang around with them. It is because of religion that such a psychopathic philosophy (if you can call it philosophy) has become normalised in society: this is deeply damaging.

Decent folk should be protected, its true; that's why such criminals need to be in prison, some quite securely til they die. And some of God's decent folk hear a call to go visit them in prison, and they do.

The "psychopathic philosophy/blame" argument doesn't sit with me; not there with you on that one.

It seems a rather low blow to start implying that Catholics are somehow superior in terms of the charity they give despite their poor record over many centuries. If the church's giving is even more generous than the UN despite the UN actually having contributing something of value (and without causing various problems e.g. by encouraging people not to use condoms, as well as continuing the spread of superstition into the 21st century), where are the results? The secular world is far more than the UN: consider that the average tax rate as a proportion of GDP in OECD countries is about 35%: which goes to supporting the disadvantage, whether directly through credit benefits, or indirectly by building roads and providing a semi-workable capitalist system, and people still give independently give to charities of their own on top of this.

I am only telling you what I have witnessed in my own experience.

_________________________________________
End of response to part 3 of 3...

[Eliza Thomason]

I keep thinking about this part of the discussion with you, Subteigh, and I am wonder if I was arrogantly mocking of your theory. And I am sorry; I didn't mean to. I remind myself now that when I first heard it I was willing to believe it, too.

My husband has read most of this thread and contributed to my thought at various times, too. As far as the Pebble/Rock idea, he said it was preposterous, and thought you (Subteigh) must practically the only person in the world who would make this argument. I said, no, if you are Evangelical you heard this and thought it was probably true. He insisted, saying he NEVER, ever head one person make this argument. I reminder him that him that he was never Evangelical Protestant (or, "Bible-alone, "Faith-alone") so that's why. (He converted from Anglican; he'd studied to be an Anglican Priest at King's College, London).. he converted after he returned to the states, a conversion he simply refers to as when he "made my peace with Rome".

So Dh read the Karl Keating article about the Pebble, which really is a good article. I had told him he would be particularly interested in Keating's translation discussion because that is right up his alley.. he loves understanding word meaning, origins, translation protocol, linguistics, all that stuff that is less interesting to me unless I can directly apply it at the moment.

He did think it was interesting, but pointed out that, as Keating said, the main point of the verse is that Jesus is giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom: authority - such authority that what they bound on earth would be bound in Heaven! That is the astounding part, the giving of that authority.

He also made the point concerning authority and the lack of it - what if each state was simply giving a copy of the Constitution and each state was told to interpret it however they want?

So I did re-read the Keating article again, and the following point sticks out the most to me, which I reprint below. Karl makes a point of the structure of what Jesus said. Jesus was perfect, as was everything He said. Keating makes clear the simple perfection of the structure of what Jesus said to Peter (I made some changes, adding spaces, italics, [my comments in gray], emoticoms and bolds to share emphasis I see):

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured.

After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter.

Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context.

Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22*, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom.

Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure [and we still the call Peter's successor "Father" - Holy Father" because of his most holy role. Pope means "Papa" or "Father" in Latin.] to the household of faith (Is. 22:21**), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17***).

This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.



It is pretty hard to pretend those parallels are not there, since Jesus made direct reference to them.

Another thought: my husband said he just could not understand how anyone could build a theology on such an interpretation of Jesus's word to Peter (the pebble idea). I told him I know how. Its a habit from Bible Studies and Lectures and Radio Speakers and Bible Conferences and Sunday Sermons and Small Group Studies -- a bad habit of starting with a theology and then using a string of Bible verses from all over the Bible - one verse from this chapter, a verse from another chapter, then back to Old Testament, then the Gospel then an Epistle... we all would have our Bibles and be flipping all over the place for verses that when strung together pulled the speaker's (or Bible Study author's) theological point together as proof. I am not saying those points were bad, but I now think that's not a good way to read the Bible -- a sentence here, back 30 pages, another sentence, forward 100 pages, another sentence - etc. The verses should be read in context. Also I am not denying that picking up the Bible and reading one verse can be fruitful - it can truly be God's voice speaking to you in that moment. I am just saying: when you start talking theology, you should be well aware of the contexts of each "prrof verse".

{The Bible Study I am in awe of now as a Catholic is Jeff Cavin's - and its all in context, rich context, and I am blown away by it.

_____________________
*Isaiah 22:22 - "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

**Isaiah 22:21 - " And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."

***John 21:15-17 - "15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


Context of Isaiah:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...22&version=KJV

Random commentary on Isaiah verses: http://www.godvine.com/bible/isaiah/22-21

[Eliza Thomason]

@Subteigh, it seems you had that right idea as to what the Jews believe happens after death. At least, according to this Rabbi on "Jewish Answers", whom I asked:


You can contact this rabbi directly for future, unrelated questions by emailing "eliahu@JewishAnswers.org"

JewishAnswers.org

Wed, Jul 22nd 2015 at 4:07 PM

Shalom,

The general belief is that the soul is kept in what one may call a soul-bank, at least those souls that are to return. Time is not the same thing in that realm, and I really cannot give you details. These are secrets that G-d keeps to himself.

Regards, Eliahu Levenson

This also confirms my thought, too, that this is not a matter of dogma, that there are differing ideas. But this seems to be the prevailing thought at this time. My long experience in a community with a large Jewish population gives me the thought that this topic, like so many others, possibly draws spirited debate and varying opinions among some who enjoy theological debate (and such debates are considered acceptable). Jesus, of course, knew exactly what Heaven was like. And great, esteemed theologians of His day, like Hillel*, certainly would have had his own thoughts to share on the matter.

*Some say that Hillel, as well as Gamaliel, were among those with whom Jesus was speaking when His mother found him in the Temple at age 12...

[Not A Communist Shill]

Okay, I am going to make an attempt at shorter answers!


Its really not pedantic. My husband said the same thing. It was never, ever considered a New Testament book. New Testament is after Christ. . These books instead were part of Jesus' Holy Scripture. We know this because they were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for just one. Maccabees is Jewish history between the old and the New Testament and it is quoted by New Testament writes as scripture (for detail on this, see that first link).

I see.

Well, first of all, 3 centuries is not that long. Consider how many centuries the Jews kept faith to every jot and tittle of their faith traditions, which, as we can see in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, did not change over many, many centuries. These people knew how to hold on to traditions, and not change them one bit!

Second of all, I quoted that 367A.D. because it includes the 73 books! The same 73 books Christians ALWAYS used. The "66 books" idea came many, many centuries later. That's 16 centuries later! More suspect than a mere 4 centuries later, don't you think?

As far as it being into the 4th century that the list is made, there is something you need to know. There is no historical reason whatsoever to think those 73 books were suddenly decided on for the first time in 367A.D. Those books were highly likely to have been long accepted at that time. What you probably don't know is that the Catholic Church never declared a thing a Dogma until centuries after they had been practicing and holding fast - very fast - to tradition that no one ever questioned, that was just always accepted as truth. Then much later new folks came along with new ideas. Only then, in order to defend the long-held tradition, Councils would take place to make the old, long-practiced tradition into Dogma (a belief that will never change), in order to protect these long-held traditions for future generations. We have a long history of working it that way. Centuries upon centuries. No council ever made up new ideas. The job of the council is to protect the faith handed down by the Apostles. And that is what the Councils have always done.

The Jews also have had a debate about which books they consider canonical. The difference with the Christians is that Christianity has been a proselytising religion, and that many schools/churches of Christianity spread in the first centuries A.D. Despite what you say, it is known that they had different opinions on what books were canonical, and that various churches/sects were persecuted for having the audacity to have different opinions. In addition, the books from that time are rather fragmentary and occur in many variations, evidently because these sects were editing the works. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls cache, there are different variations of the same texts. If the books all appear at once in complete form all at the time of Jesus, I would be more inclined to accept your account of an unchanging Truth.

But even in the case of Islam, where the early Muslims did a far better job of keeping a consistent text (partly because of intention, but also because not many texts could be made at first), there are variations that would make you doubt it was the timeless word of god, or from the inspiration of god.

No, that is not clear. Its simply a new recent-century Protestant interpretation that the the Communion of Saints is like calling up the Dead for information like in Deuteronomy.

Not at all. This is the view in Judaism also.

Ah, you are throwing out the great Apostle John's book? And the blessing, too - "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it". I personally would not throw out something as no good just because I don't understand it. I withhold judgment, knowing I might understand it later... .

What evidence do you have it was written by John the disciple of Jesus? (nevermind the person who wrote the gospel commonly attributed to John the apostle). Both claims are unprovable at best, but the attribution of Revelations especially.

I see a pattern here - if it does not make immediate sense to you, or if it does not seem consistent with your ideas, then you judge it faulty, and not your own understanding. I don't do that. Its okay with me to leave something open that doesn't make sense until I later get more understanding. .. Maybe its p vs. j...

This isn't my attitude at all. Firstly, I am telling you what the Old Testament says, regardless of whether or not Jesus agreed with it. Secondly, I am telling you what the Christians in the books of the New Testament believed about 'Jesus' interpretation of that scripture. Thirdly, I am merely expressing the fact that Jesus in the New Testament is contradictory even with himself. I make no claims about whether Jesus actually did contradict himself or even whether he actually existed. If Jesus is attributed as saying as the dead are asleep until an agency such as a living person or god 'wakes them up', and yet he also has a fictional story which has two dead people talking to each other without being 'woken up', then it is fairly easy to see him as being contradictory, unless he didn't believe that people 'fall asleep' straight away or unless the story was supposed to be demonstrative rather than theologically sound (but still contradictory).

[QUOTE=Eliza Thomason;1095171] I guess because Moses had a few centuries to think things over... .. he eventually likely realized God knew what He was doing after all. As far as not-sufficient - God doesn't tell us His criteria for sufficiency. Anyway, Moses - he was rather set-apart, don't you think? I mean - horns!

Aren't you just acting in a way that you described me as acting?

Yes. And you forgot your capital G there (But I fixed it for you! ).

I was quite intentional in my lack of a capital G. I don't have a personal relationship with such an entity. Also, I think even you should not object: the problem comes out of you calling your god, "God", a rather generic name. I could as easily have said that "capitalism only has one god", "Islam only has one god", "the Abrahamic religions only have one god". If I referred to "God" in such instances, you might object as it imply that I consider such gods to have some importance, or that the Islamic god has equal validity with the Christian one. Saying "it has only god" is equivalent to saying "it has a god"...if I had said "Christianity has a God", you would probably also object.

I can't think of where this is in the Bible.Your meaning is not clear, and its unfamiliar.

In Hebrews 9:27-28:

And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Once you die, that is it.

This "punishing god" you speak of - I don't know him/her. Our Christian God is loving and merciful. He loves us so much, that rather than "punish us", as you say, He sent His only Son to atone for all of our sins, so that we would not have to pay for them ourselves.

Matthew 3:12

His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 13:37-42

He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 14:10

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

I see: You were referring to:
"So man lies down and does not rise.
Till the heavens are no more,
They will not awake
Nor be roused from their sleep."

Like I said, its more poetic to call a dead person "asleep" than say dead. And you can see, Job's words here are poetic. A dead person appears to be sleeping, but you cannot rouse him, see? Its quite perfectly clear to see the context here is not Job trying to explain what happens to the state of a soul from death to judgment Day! You have fallen prey to the Fundamentalist Christian's error of supporting vast theological ideas with miscellaneous misplaced verses verses strung together - verses that are taken quite out of context. You cannot ignore context.

It seems that you are ignorant of the context of Jewish philosophy.

Are you saying that if a thing is not in the Bible, then its not true?

That is a rather peculiar response to my nuanced answer. In short, the bible has many things that are unverifiable, but as the central text of Christianity, if a later text or opinion fundamentally contradicts what the bible says on a point, then the doctrine is internally inconsistent.

I gave you the scripture. Jesus gave the Church authority to decide things and said it would be agreed in Heaven. That's some serious authority!

The Catholic view of saints makes it very much a doctrine about posthumous saints who are justified via supposed miraculous events, contrary to the Christian attitude that Christians become saints while living, not while dead, and they become saints through their faith alone, not through their deeds. The Catholic attitude turns the Christian view of saints completely upside down.

It did occur. Its crazy far-fetched to suggest that it did not.

I already gave you my answer to that. But if you must continue...
Science now routinely makes people with no pupils see, far more frequently then the Christians allegedly do. Based on your spiel, you should be placing your faith elsewhere.

Wow. That kind of faith in science just blows my mind. It seems fairy-tale like to have that much faith in science to explain everything that matters! I hope you read that booklet I linked, "Heaven Speaks to Those Who Have Rejected God", because its interesting how Jesus addresses those who, as I see it, hide behind science. I think Our Lady says it best when she says, "Dearest little child of heaven, you are not as intellectually advanced as you think."

"Faith" in science...faith in conclusions and made about the observable universe is not really faith at all...and to suggest that there is something insignificant about basing your life only on that which can be observed shows your ideology to be rather empty (although vacuums can at least be observed to exist): rather, your ideology is a non-existent nothing. You are utterly unable to demonstrate something that happens outside the realm of physics: anything you suggest would either be possible to observe and measure, or it would not exist. To start placing your faith in that which cannot be observed is a highly dangerous attitude, and certainly unproductive. The scientific method focusses on falsifiable hypotheses and productive models.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I'll ask my husband this one. He is taking a nap right now. There may have been some factions of Judaism that have held this long-held view but it is not their dogma. It is certainly true that the Jews have had many differing ideas on what happens after death.

Just the literalists?

It may surprise you, but there are many Christians who do not take the bible literally or consider it to be the unaltered message of God.

I say that because when I read visions of Heaven, like in Anne's visions shown her by Jesus, or when we read peoples experiences who have died and come back to life, besides having a "particular judgment" - like I told you about, which is the Catholic view of individual judgments at the point of death before the one big Judgment Day - at the moment, where our life flashes before us and we see the truth of our lives in the light of the loving merciful and perfectly just God, they always go to a Heaven which is a place that is not unlike earth. There are flowers, hills, grass, mountains, landscapes, cities, towns, parks - only it is so much more astoundingly beautiful that everyone struggles to explain just how it is so much better, even thought they try. And they all mourn coming back here, and long to be back there. So it seems true that Heaven will be like this earth - but better. The things we have learned to love here on earth we will find there.

People from different religions and cultures have differing visions during near-death experiences. We've discussed this before. It has nothing to do with how heaven is, but how people have been raised. The biblical account of heaven (in Revelations) only refers to one large city: while it is true there may also be towns outside this, it would rather dilute the impact the image of the New Jerusalem, with its 12 gates for the 12 tribes of Israel and so on if it had towns of lesser importance outside it.

not sure what you are saying here.

I am saying that the name attributed to the miracle basically emphasises it as being a heavenly lightshow surrounding Jesus: i.e. the Transfiguration of Jesus is a vision regarding Jesus, not the resurrection of Moses.

What source would there be? The Pharisees, who were shown beyond any doubt that not only did all of the earth tremble at their deed, but Heaven as well?

For example, regional historians said nothing of the event, nor did any Roman historians or Roman civil records regarding crime and punishment.. This is despite there being histories from the same period which discussed even minor events, prophets, messiahs, philosophers and so on, by people who were meticulous in recording anything of note, whether they believed it or not.

Do you remember what this is about?

No such institute that can hold itself together and consistent for 2000 years and have an unbroken line of succession of its leaders all these years. That is miraculous in itself. And no Pope has ever taught an infallible doctrine on faith and morals that has ever contradicted with that of any Pope before him. So that each Pope has less leeway than the one before him. Its just not like the nature of man.... its just not like any other institution run by humans. There just must be something else behind it.

Like the Holy Spirit?

What about the House of Confucius? He died 500 years before Jesus, and yet his teachings still exist, his family tree is known up to the modern day, he has an extremely large cemetery of family members in his home town that dates to his time and his house was consecrated soon after his death and the Temple of Confucius is now on the site. There is also the Kong family mansion.

The Catholic church by comparison begins with a line of leadership for which there is no contemporary evidence for until Eleuterus, who reigned between 174 and 189 A.D.

No, the "pebble" analogy is the infamous one. It is a brand new Protestant invention, divorced from every other interpretation for centuries upon centuries before it, and its silly - really. really silly. Jesus saying: "Peter! You are the PEBBLE!" ...Pebble? Really? Oh, thank you, Jesus!

Read some scholarly Catholic interpretation of it, and what they have to say about the scholarly work of the Protestant's who defend their "pebble" theory.

There is Greek, and Aramaic. There's your clue to the misinterpretation. Do you think Jesus spoke Greek the Galilean fisherman Peter?

Just because a thing is not discussed in Old Testament Scripture does not mean it never existed. No. Just as we have men and woman in every century who pledge their lives to God and abstain from the marriage and the pleasures of marriage in order to more fully pledge their lives to God, so also did a few devout Jews in every generation, including the time of Joseph and Mary. I am with the school (and the mystics) who say Mary and Joseph, before they even met, were so all for God alone that they had already pledged their chaste lives to God alone, when God instead called them to marry, and they obeyed, knowing not why. So when the angel told Mary that she would conceive, she so surprised she actually questioned the angel. She had already pledged herself to know no man. So how could she become pregnant? Since she was betrothed, the idea getting pregnant should not have surprised her. That she had already pledged herself to be "for God alone", in order to serve God completely and without distraction (as Paul says later in the New Testament is a good and admirable thing) is the reason for being surprised at a thing that is not surprising for a normal betrothed person. And Mary called herself the handmaid/servant of the Lord. This is some of the evidence that she was already committed to being a complete servant.

The old Pebble theory! That is really a silly theory when you think of it. You have to actually decide that Jesus was speaking nonsense. Does anyone ever call anyone a "pebble"? Does it mean anything? Pebble? That's why I say its silly. Its also bad scholarship - which is the natural result when you start with the answer ("The Catholicity of that verse is too hard to swallow, so, it must be saying something other than what it clearly and plainly says) and find some way, no matter how far the distance from reality, in order to back up your own preconceived notions..

You find many clear refutations of the infamous pebble theory all over the web, but I'll link you one. This one, by Karl Keating, a well-knows Catholic Apologist, will serve.

I actually said that Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic:

When Jesus was referring to the pebble, he was not referring to Simon, but the faith of all his disciples in the identity of Jesus as the Christ. The words for pebble (little rock) and bedrock (large rock) in Aramaic are quite distinct. The other passages in the bible emphasise that Jesus was considered The rock, not any mortal. Especially considering that this passage ends with "Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ." which makes no sense in the context of founding a new church (Jesus' emphasis on spreading the Word came later, e.g. on the day of Pentecost)...also, considering this was before Simon had denied Jesus three times: it would not make sense to say this about Simon, at least not at this time. Finally, it should also be understood in the context of Jesus saying that even faith as small as the mustard seed is a great thing: but Jesus is very much The Rock, and his disciples are the pebbles.

This has nothing to do with what "Protestants" say: you have a thing with Protestants.

You ask why would Jesus have called anyone a pebble...why would he have called himself bedrock? It is no more absurd. Jesus is referred to as many things, e.g. a lamb, the shepherd, the door and so on. The Aramaic for bedrock or boulder is Petra, which Jesus first uses when speaking of the foundation he will use to build his church (i.e. himself). When Jesus refers to his disciples, when talking of the faith they have in him being the Messiah, that is when he uses the word Kephas, which means stone, more the size of something you could hold in your hand: not something you would build a church upon. (This is when some Christians believe that Jesus was talking to Simon specifically, and that the earlier use of Petra referred to Simon also.

If "bedrock" was meant to refer to Simon or the disciples in general, the word Petra would have been used...the paragraph would not have had two distinct words relating to stone.

1 Corinthians 10:4 says

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

the Rock used here is Petra.

in 1 Peter 2:4-8:

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.

7. Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”
8 and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

The 'rock' used here, again, is Petra, and refers to the Christ. This is contrasted with the living stones and the stone/s of stumbling that are mentioned in the same passage.

Psalms 18:31 says:

For who is God, except the Lord?
And who is a rock, except our God?

Psalm 18:2

The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my strength, in whom I will trust;
My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

1 Corinthians 3:11-17

For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Jesus only a short while after being acclaimed as the Messiah by Simon said this, which would be extraordinary if in that period he saw Peter as the foundation of his church...especially knowing that Peter would later deny him three times:
Matthew 16:23-27

He turned and said to Simon, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.[/quote]

Isaiah 32:1-2

Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.

2 And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.

Ephesians 2:19-22

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Matthew 7:24-25

Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

Just because a thing is not discussed in Old Testament Scripture does not mean it never existed. No. Just as we have men and woman in every century who pledge their lives to God and abstain from the marriage and the pleasures of marriage in order to more fully pledge their lives to God, so also did a few devout Jews in every generation, including the time of Joseph and Mary. I am with the school (and the mystics) who say Mary and Joseph, before they even met, were so all for God alone that they had already pledged their chaste lives to God alone, when God instead called them to marry, and they obeyed, knowing not why. So when the angel told Mary that she would conceive, she so surprised she actually questioned the angel. She had already pledged herself to know no man. So how could she become pregnant? Since she was betrothed, the idea getting pregnant should not have surprised her. That she had already pledged herself to be "for God alone", in order to serve God completely and without distraction (as Paul says later in the New Testament is a good and admirable thing) is the reason for being surprised at a thing that is not surprising for a normal betrothed person. And Mary called herself the handmaid/servant of the Lord. This is some of the evidence that she was already committed to being a complete servant.


And even had Joseph, instead, done as some (not me) believe, and was previously married and widowed, really, one must consider they were not an ordinary couple. She was impregnated by the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE! Do you think Joseph was anxious to say, "I'm next, my turn!"? Do you think that Mary had two spouses, simultaneously? Or did the Holy Spirit divorce her after impregnating her, having done as many cads do, used a woman for what he needed, and then left, saying, here, Joseph, now you impregnate my holy spouse? Do you not think that, in their shoes, you might be distracted from your own earthly joys when your Son is your Lord and the Savior of all mankind, and God has entrusted you to raise Him?

These are the astounding realities of the life of Christ that people contemplated for centuries, when they had fewer distractions than we do. More people used to imitate Mary, and take such wonderful things of God into their hearts and contemplate them quietly. And we reap the rich inheritance of such contemplations.

It isn't a matter of it not being mentioned in scripture...it is a matter of it explicitly being refuted by scripture. It says that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. It doesn't say "Joseph never had sex with Mary".

Angels never lie.

oh, you don't consider Satan to have been an angel then?

[Not A Communist Shill]

God's ways are not our ways. What makes sense to us is not always God's sense. What seems impossible to us is not impossible to God.

God is omnipotent. And perfectly just. And completely loving, and completely merciful. All those things, in perfection.

This is a lousy ideology, morally. You might as well say "Satan is worthy of worship because he may have cured someone of blindness that one time".

For me, if something is fundamentally evil in the way it acts (as it is, I don't believe in "evil" evil), then I should stay clear of it. If you are so uncritical of what you follow, you could end up doing and justifying anything.

I do not see how you arrive at this idea. It doesn't make sense to me. Can you give some example to help explain your meaning?

If I commit a murder, I should be punished in accordance with the severity of the crime and the level of responsibility I had for my actions. I would not expect to be punished based on whether I believed in god. I would not expect to be punished for eternity for a crime of limited value, nor would I expect those who had committed worse crimes to escape punishment merely by being apologetic and because they believed in god. I certainly would not expect such people to be rewarded. If religion means anything, it should be in the realm of morality, not the supernatural. Sorry if that doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't consider it justified to torment Anne Frank in the eternal fires of hell for example, especially after escaping being burnt in the ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau, just because she had the "wrong" religion. I also wouldn't consider it justified for a certain former leader of Germany as well as Joseph Stalin to go to an eternal paradise just because they believed in god (there is no evidence that either stopped believing in god).

No, don't bother, they will be the same old ones, and they are not the same, like Lenin's obvious wax fake, and many other differing phenomena or machinations of no compare. Note many Incorruptibles were kept in highly unfavorable conditions, like dear St. Cuthbert I read about this week, whose body the faithful hauled all over England for centuries to escape persecutions and exiles. Also the same for many others, especially the many-centuries-old ones. And just look at Padre Pio; you have to wonder - how can this be? And they are unique to other phenomena - the hair grows, the nails grow. Their clothes corrupt - they have to put new ones on, and the bodies are still flexible! Its not explainable by science. But I don't hoard up the scientific detail in my brain when I don't need to, I am already convinced. If you are interested in the scientific details of these Incorruptible bodies of some Saints, and what exactly sets it apart for other so-called phenomena, the best source for that would be Joan Carroll Cruz's book, The Incorruptibles. You can get a used copy for $3! I am confident that any "what about him/her" that you could come up with is thoroughly discussed, with all the accompanying science and references, there. You can learn all about it if you are interested.

No, I was thinking of for example Alexander the Great whose body was preserved for at least several centuries: we know for example that 250 years after his death, the preserved remains of Napoleon at least 20 years after his death, the many examples of Buddhist monks whose bodies were found preserved years after they went to caves to meditate, cases of bodies in ordinary cemeteries being found preserved in recent times (e.g. recently, a body that was known to have been buried in a lead coffin was exhumed as scientists wanted a sample of tissue from someone who had died from the 1918 influenza epidemic) as well as various bodies preserved in bogs, ice, or sand, not including cases where people were deliberately preserved. The fact is, when you bury people in conditions that are good for preservation, e.g. three coffins, or in a dry church with no soil, it is not surprising when some tissue is preserved, in some instances, especially if you have a habit of disturbing corpses a few years after death.

Also consider John Henry Newman: a Catholic theologian I can actually respect, he was a decent fellow. When the Catholics attempted to disturb his body ahead of making him a saint (which happened in 2010)...not one trace of him could be found.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Basically, what the Church formally decrees on earth, then so agrees Heaven. So when the Church definitively says someone is in Heaven, by naming them a Saint, this is where the authority comes from to say that. And that's some pretty serious authority, which the Church does not take lightly. Its quite a long, long involved process to canonize a Saint; there is much investigation, and there have to be provable miracles that require strict documentation that happened when their prayer assistance was asked for. I think for Pope John Paul II it was a woman who was born with no pupils - blind, of course - who asked for prayers, and she was made to see. And, as she still has no pupils, medical doctors confirm that this is certainly miraculous and cannot be explained by science. Then there was a nun cured of Parkinson's, the long illness and its total cure all properly documented.

I've been looking into this blindness case, and can only find this website which is vague on details: http://catholicism.org/another-wonde...no-pupils.html

I did look up the case of Gemma di Giorgi also following on from that, and read that she gained some sight before she even met Padre Pio (a person who claimed to undergo stigmata but always in private: it was later found out he had been inflicting wounds on himself with acid: John XXIII at least considered him a fraud).

I remember reading that in the UK, only 5% of people who are legally blind are in actually fact completely blind. Also reading about aniridia (being born without an iris), it isn't necessarily a black-and-white condition where in each case, you are completely without irises and completely without sight. It is unfortunate that there is no way of verifying the miracle claims.

[Eliza Thomason]

...Also consider John Henry Newman: a Catholic theologian I can actually respect, he was a decent fellow. ....

I have begun a response to your posts here, and put it away for now, and will post it when I have finished, and re-read, and adjusted. A few days maybe since we will entertain guests the next couple of days. I just want to say, yes, what a fine man Newman was! I always think of his quote: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (So he spake from experience, and it was a shock to him, too. But then he also says, “To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” Also I have always liked his phrase from a poem, I believe, "Lead, Kindly Light."

I went hunting for his quotes after you mentioned him. And I found one I loved, and changed my "signature" quote, as you can see here below.

I love it because it is a truth I acted on when my marraige fell apart. I am a relationship kind of person. Blame it on being Libra, or blame it on being sx/so. I had never imagined my adult life as a single, unmarried person. But I picked so wrong that first time. I tried so hard to make it work, but it was impossible. And I understand also now why it was impossible (as my priest said at the time, "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.") I thought I had "Gods choice" when I married him, but looking back, I realized that it was my want, and I projected that onto God - I even had a great story of why I believed it was God who picked us, which I was convinced of (along the lines of, "Our letters crossed in the mail, and we said the same thing..") . But I look back and I know that it was my idea, that I never did seek God's opinion, willing to set aside my own.

So this time I would do it different. I would truly seek God's will, since clearly, as Newman says, I do not know what will really make me happy. God knows. Perhaps God wanted me to be single the rest of my life. So I must prepare for even that. And if I were to marry again, I could never count on myself to "pick" - since I picked so wrong. If I were to marry, God would have to make it PERFECTLY clear. And so I would learn to be happy single. Which was a lot of work and not easy, and it seemed that all the happy single Moms had someone.... Nonetheless, I did have peace, and I never could get too discouraged; He would always comfort me.

And He did pick someone for me. I have told the story elsewhere, and truly, my SLI husband was God's choice. It was unexpected; I did not go looking. Later I found he is my Dual, which made me say, 'So that's why!" since there were not the typical worldly reasons to have picked him! We are well-matched in so many ways, and happy. So therefore I would recommend to anyone, ask God whom you should have. He will show you. (And meantime, waste your time with no one else!) That's my dating advice. Its not easy, but it will get you where you want to go.

[Aylen]

I love it because it is a truth I acted on when my marraige fell apart. I am a relationship kind of person. Blame it on being Libra, or blame it on being sx/so. I had never imagined my adult life as a single, unmarried person. But I picked so wrong that first time. I tried so hard to make it work, but it was impossible. And I understand also now why it was impossible (as my priest said at the time, "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.") I thought I had "Gods choice" when I married him, but looking back, I realized that it was my want, and I projected that onto God - I even had a great story of why I believed it was God who picked us, which I was convinced of (along the lines of, "Our letters crossed in the mail, and we said the same thing..") . But I look back and I know that it was my idea, that I never did seek God's opinion, willing to set aside my own.

So this time I would do it different. I would truly seek God's will, since clearly, as Newman says, I do not know what will really make me happy. God knows. Perhaps God wanted me to be single the rest of my life. So I must prepare for even that. And if I were to marry again, I could never count on myself to "pick" - since I picked so wrong. If I were to marry, God would have to make it PERFECTLY clear. And so I would learn to be happy single. Which was a lot of work and not easy, and it seemed that all the happy single Moms had someone.... Nonetheless, I did have peace, and I never could get too discouraged; He would always comfort me.

And He did pick someone for me. I have told the story elsewhere, and truly, my SLI husband was God's choice. It was unexpected; I did not go looking. Later I found he is my Dual, which made me say, 'So that's why!" since there were not the typical worldly reasons to have picked him! We are well-matched in so many ways, and happy. So therefore I would recommend to anyone, ask God whom you should have. He will show you. (And meantime, waste your time with no one else!) That's my dating advice. Its not easy, but it will get you where you want to go.

I have some questions, mainly out of curiosity so feel free to ignore them. I am in one of those moods today. Have been sitting in the same position, with my legs crossed, for hours contemplating our universe and some of today's posts. I have "secrets of the universe" playing in the background. Maybe some of it will sink in. People have found it hard to snap me out of it (to eat or take a break) but they have pretty much left me alone for now.

I haven't read all the posts. If the answers are already here you can direct me to them.

How do you know it wasn't god's will that you marry the first man so that you could plant seeds (or whatever it is called) inside him that would grow in the future?

Do you have love and forgiveness in your heart for your first husband or do you see him as a bad person not worthy of forgiveness? You may have answered this before but I do not recall seeing it?

If you have been given real free will then why do you need to know god's opinion when it comes to relationships?

Why would god even have an opinion since you were given free will?

Does god really match people according to socionics? And is god like a supervisor?

Your process for evaluating and coming to terms with relationships is not much different than mine. I am also a relationship person (blame it on the moon) and have never been single long. I just value every relationship I had and don't place much or any blame when they end (usually on good terms and with much sadness). If anything I blame myself.

I call it listening to my inner voice but if I get it "wrong" it is most likely because I went with my emotions instead of my own intuition. I am thinking what I call intuition is what you call god's will? I don't believe any of my relationships were mistakes, more like stepping stones and learning experiences for both of us. I keep all that love with me since it is not something I want to give up. It has only changed form and no longer romantic.

The silk purse out of a sow's ear saying sounds a little mean degrading to me.

[Eliza Thomason]

I have some questions, mainly out of curiosity so feel free to ignore them.

Thank you for asking them! They are just the sort of things I like to write and think about. Its pretty "IEE", too, to see ideas through personal experience... In fact, choosing to be incognito here was particularly so that I could be free to talk about my personal experiences, since I like to do that, in order to reflect. But since they touch on other people I have to respect their privacy. Plus incognito allows me be more open.

So thanks for the compliment of asking why I think/do what I do. Also I know you have a good mind that can take in all kinds of info so you won't mind if I take the long way to get to the answer. Because that's what I had to do to get to the answers myself.

I am in one of those moods today. Have been sitting in the same position, with my legs crossed, for hours contemplating our universe and some of today's posts. I have "secrets of the universe" playing in the background. Maybe some of it will sink in. People have found it hard to snap me out of it (to eat or take a break) but they have pretty much left me alone for now.

A cogitating IEI is almost intimidating. So much goes on in that mind! One cannot assume! And I think I am afraid of the annoyance when I have mis-assumed. So please bear with me if I step on things as I stumble about...

I haven't read all the posts. If the answers are already here you can direct me to them.

And I am not ignoring Subteigh's thoughtful posts. I am working on responses and will post after I finish and correct!

(Also we are entertaining guests next couple days, so if I disappear, I am coming back).

How do you know it wasn't god's will that you marry the first man so that you could plant seeds (or whatever it is called) inside him that would grow in the future?

Well, even though at the time I had a story I made up that I truly believed that was based on lovely coincidences, our chemistry, our perfectness-together (funny how chemistry makes you think you are perfect!) and probably influenced by a fact that I never admitted at the time: that I was finishing college and getting hitched right after graduation seemed the best-ever thing to do! - I do know now that I never asked God what His will was. I know because I have since asked His will on things, so, now I know what its like to ask, to wait, and to get an answer.

I also know that it requires willingness to not like the answer, and probably a willingness to do His will once you know what it is! I know that if you go for it with that in your heart, you are SURE to get an answer.

In college, I had a real conversion/born-again experience, and I gave my life to Christ. I truly saw the LIGHT, which I was searching for, and completely not expecting to find it in Jesus (I thought I already knew all about Jesus, so, that could not have been what I was looking for. I was looking for truth, but, somewhere else. But it turned out to be Jesus! Which was a surprise.). So, at this time I was just all caught-up in the thrill of learning that I could ask God for things and He would give them to me! [Kind of like a Super-natrural Slot Machine! Yea! But God is like a patient, kind, and indulgent parent...and He knew He had a long way to go with me, and I guess He thought that was a good place to start...]. So, God made me happy, and my boyfriend made me happy, so, my boyfriend must be from God! (A Narcissist turns on the charm and the persistence in the first phase of relationship, so I did have reason to be convinced I was truly loved. They also hurry you into commitment, and I was willing to be hurried). At that point I had not yet learned to really turn my whole life over to God. Oh. Oops. I guess I still haven't learned that. But, I am at least looking in that direction now. I wasn't then. I was not ready to say, "God, I love this. But, I will put it down if you ask. I only want what you want." I know I wanted what God wanted, but I also loved what I wanted! I wasn't ready to trust God with things I really wanted. So, then, I didn't really ask him those things. I just assumed He was with my choices!

In hindsight, no, I do not think my ex was God's will for me. I know now that the Church has called that marriage annulled, so "never should have been" - so the answer is pretty solid that the ex was not God's will for me. And my ex was a Narcissist, and that was not good for me. God wants my good, so, then He didn't want that for me.

But God did allow it. He allowed me to follow my own will, and to reap the consequence. When He could have intervened supernaturally! Once, years before, back in high school, God did intervene supernaturally when I was about to choose to do something very foolish, that could have gone very badly for me.

So God could have jumped in and made His will known, even though I didn't ask, but He did not. Probably my will of not wanting to know His will had something to do with it. Because as that same priest I mentioned told me: God rarely, if ever, violates our will.

But God makes all things work together for the good, and when we do stupid, willful things by our own choice, His grace can turn them into a positive. Sometimes its a long hard row to get to that. But He'll even help us row!

Do you have love and forgiveness in your heart for your first husband or do you see him as a bad person not worthy of forgiveness? You may have answered this before but I do not recall seeing it?

Thanks for asking. That I have any love and forgiveness in my heart at all for him I can only credit to the gift of God. When I was in the thick of the worse - the shock of realizing my ex never had good will for me and purposely had been tearing me down all those years, and I read his affair and the lies he said about me to blame me for his affair, and his plans to take our son to live with him and his girlfriend after divorcing me and taking custody by having me declared crazy (scary when you live with a crazy-maker), and I lost my house I so loved and had worked so hard for (to pay lawyers)... I was FULL of anger and hurt and shock at what happened to me, and indignation at the low life person he really always was, that I had foolishly believed was not so bad (I had thought that inside, he had good intentions, in spite of all. But inside, he did not).

Intellectually I realized that circumstances in life had made him that way (alcoholic Dad, 8 kids, Mom had a temporary substance abuse problem, too - and when the right (wrong) circumstances come together for a person especially at a young age, it CAN change a person, and when that NPD sets in early, it stays. (God can heal even that. But the person has to be willing to be healed. Which is often an obstacle for an NPD, who thinks he is FANTASTIC the way he is, and has the world's approval to show for it!)

But there was never any doubt in my mind that God loves my ex - maybe more than me, in a sense, as he is His lost sheep, and God knows He already has me! So, I never doubted God's great love for my ex.

But knowing this combined with my feelings of anger and dislike and disgust (but not hate) caused inner conflict, so I took it to Confession, choosing a holy and pious priest that I knew would not take it easy on me - he would call sin sin. Confession is a font of grace, a Sacrament; it is one of the ordinary ways that God sends extra-ordinary grace down to us. That is why I went to Confession, not just because I know its right to go, but because I wanted the present! To receive the extraordinary graces to improve, because, try as I might, I could not improve on my own.

I told the old priest about the betrayal I had experienced, and my dislike/digust of my ex, even though I mentally realized he was simply a damaged person and acting out of that. I confessed that I know that God asks me to pray for my enemies and those who persecute me, but that try as I might, I could rarely pray for him. I would know all day that I should, in fact from the moment I got up, and I would procrastinate it all day, until I about fell asleep, and then I would make myself say a rushed prayer for him, thrashing about when I said his name, because I hated to pray for him. I knew intellectually that the great good that could come out of that wrong marriage was that maybe no one else would ever pray for his soul, so that my role in the great good would be to pray for him.

The priest said it was perfectly understandable. He told me he had a suggestion for my penance, and said that if I thought I could not do it he would gladly give me another. He asked me to pray 3 Hail Mary's for him everyday, that was all. I said I could. It was a great relief to know that my obligation to my ex was all met by those 3 Hail Mary's, which were so easy to pray - I simply focused on God's lovely handiwork, Mary, as I prayed those simply Heavenly words, and not a thought to that that ugly mess that was my ex! And she took over for me, focusing on that guy. I could go the rest of the day not thinking about him, and I would not be displeasing God! Soon I adjusted this prayer, this idea dawned on me. Probably some day I will find out that Mary, or maybe St. Loius de Montfort, whispered it to me. I asked Mary to pray for my ex with her perfect heart, Full of Grace, in place of my lowly heart which could not manage it. So I obtained for my ex great graces - prayers by the most beloved most faithful prayer warrior in Heaven!

In a few months time, without realizing it, through these prayers, God's grace worked in my life, too. I suddenly realized one day that I could think of my ex and not feel bitterness, disgust or anger. God just took it away for me, without me even having to try. I know God did it because I tried very, very hard before to do it myself, and I was unable. When I gave it to God to do, He did it. He gets all the credit! Yes, the graces God gives through the Sacrament of Confession are huge! Also, inspired by this success, I began to pray for that other person I did not like to think about, the ex's girlfriend, who'd intervened in our marriage who he now lived with -- another cause of bitterness, as she did not lose her home and her job or her income, like I did - she kicked her husband out and mine moved in! But now with the help of Mary's heart instead of my weak one, I prayed for her, for her soul, and the soul of all her relatives and loved ones, along with the prayers for my ex and all of his. And soon I could feel indifference for her, too! She and he now are just people that God loves whom happen to be in my life circumstantially whom I feel I should pray for.

I still pray for them and for their all their loved ones at every single Mass, at the moment of consecration, a moment of great Heavenly graces.

Someday in Heaven we'll all be good friends. (For now, here on earth, keeping distance works best!)

If you have been given real free will then why do you need to know God's opinion when it comes to relationships?

Well for starters, I knew that my own will was faulty. I picked my husband! (I was not desperate. I knew I could pick another! sx/so knows how, I guess). So I knew how my "picking" could go. So, so wrong. After divorce, I learned from others' experiences there were other things that could go very, very wrong in a marriage, besides NPD and verbal abuse - probably all kinds of other horrifying problems I did not know about (and I did not yet even know about Conflictors and Auditors!). At that time I was a convert to Catholic, and I saw how happy nuns and monks were, and I thought, maybe God will want that for me. I must be open to it, in case He does.

Another answer to that very good question is that there is God's will and our own will. God gives us a gift of choice. And since He gave us a will He is not adverse to our using it. But He does know whats best.

So I might choose a guy, but God doesn't have that guy in mind for me, He has someone else, that I won't get to meet for 3 more years (and most likely He doesn't give me any knowledge beyond today - and if I honestly seek His will for today, He will say, yes, go ahead with this guy, or no, that's not for you. There are other ways besides asking directly. Like just doing the wise thing. So, if the guy was an addict for 20 years, but, he's been straight a whole week now, well, that's not wise. So, normal red flags that reason tells you to consider. If you ignore that, its like ignoring God, IMO.)

When we give up our own will to go with God's its always better. God knows us best, and He knows what will make us happy, better than we do. We cannot go wrong seeking His will! But learning to walk in God's ways is something that takes practice and time. Well, for some more than others. Some advance very quickly! I think I am one of the slower learners. We are all different; God understands, and he is the most patient teacher in the universe! We just keep working towards the mark, and we stumble a lot on the way, and best of all, God helps us when we want help. [The more childlike we are, the more progress we make. A child is more willing to ask for help than a grown-up].

There is another thing, though. We cannot out-give God. When we give up our will, what we want, and do what He wants instead, grace just gets poured down on us. Because to give up our will is giving up a lot. And we cannot out-give God. I know that's true!

Why would god even have an opinion since you were given free will?

Well, he has the whole picture, and He made us, and knows all our thoughts, He knows everything about our circumstances, and He wants the best for us, so it really is best. The Omniscience Advantage. But He made us uniquely, and He gave us a mind, and He wants us to use it. Its not easy to yield our will, but it does work out best. I guess that's why the prayer Jesus taught us includes, "Thy will be done". We have to ask all the time for it to be so, because our own can get in the way.

These are thoughtful questions. I keep praying "Thy will be done", but, I really like doing my own will. So I cannot speak as a success-story. I was successful in those extraordinary ways, I guess as a result of being extra-ordinarily unfortunate. I guess I am one of those people that has to learn the hard way.

Does god really match people according to socionics? And is god like a supervisor?

LOL, Aylen, you are a stitch. Supposing if He did match people by Socionics, my guess is that He would get us all with our Duals, and the proper subtype, and the proper sx/so/sp! I read somewhere that more Christians marry their Dual than any other type. I don't know where I read that though. But it makes sense, that more Christians might ask God to find their husband, and God wants the best for us, I am a believer that a Dual is the great match! But perhaps He woudl pick another type for some. For some the hard work of the more difficult types of matches might help them get over some of that Purgatory work while they are still here on earth! Ya never know.

In the case of my dear SLI, well, he was faithful to his ex-wife, mother of his children, and she was too, for a time, until, when the youngest was 3, she "decided" she was a lesbian (that's how it was explained to me; I do not know the details), and gained a girlfriend. Those were not nice times for SLI. His ex was more difficult to live with throughout this affair (guilt that she was breaking her marriage vow likely had a lot to do with that). My ex served as free babysitter to the girlfriend's badly behaved son, whom he watched along with his own children while they spent the day - and the night - together... SLI says he got on better with the girlfriend than his wife! (She was more reasonable). Her son, however, was a "boy badly in need of a spanking", he says. About that time, his daughter tells me, SLI began talking to his ancestors in the mirror... Eventually, they divorced, and he taught his ex to drive, got her a car, and helped her buy a house, and SLI carried on, living "celibately", wearing his ring, praying long prayers of the Church daily (in Latin), all while working, and raising his family. And so he carried on for years, quite alone in all this responsibility. Thought maybe he'd be a monk someday. Or, maybe hire a housekeeper (Like he could afford it! Not). Then I came along. Really he had about had it at this point. He said to me that day, "I am a ruin". Not the kind of guy you want to fall in love with, truly. And I had no desire to fall in love. But God had something else in mind... Truly we are God's gift to each other. Like they say of Duals, that's how it is...

Your process for evaluating and coming to terms with relationships is not much different than mine.

Aw! That's neat. And a compliment, as a lot goes on in an IEI head!

I am also a relationship person (blame it on the moon)

Pesky moon!

and have never been single long.

Its really a rather shocking thing to try when its not your normal thing.. And no one knows you're suffering in it, because to them, how hard can it be to just be alone for a bit? Lots of people are! .

I just value every relationship I had and don't place much or any blame when they end (usually on good terms and with much sadness). If anything I blame myself.

I value people, and every relationship, too. I even value my acquaintance-ships. When things don't go well with an acquaintance [even an online one!], it hurts. And it keeps on hurting. And I blame myself, too! Recently I started this "Contemplative Prayer" exercise. Contemplative Prayer is an important type of prayer for a fruitful spiritual life, and its one that does not come naturally to me. But I just found this tiny booklet from a reliable source, which is like a super-simplified Contemplative Prayer 101 for Dummies. One part of the exercise has us think of who we need to forgive, including ourselves. I scanned my mind, and I honestly could not think of a single person in my life present or past that I needed to forgive. Then I obediently went on to myself, and - wow! There was a huge unwieldy pile there! And I know that is wrong. God forgives me, and I need to be like Him and forgive myself. So I pray for that. Mostly I just say, "God, show me how."

I call it listening to my inner voice but if I get it "wrong" it is most likely because I went with my emotions instead of my own intuition.

I imagine you keep getting better at it, right? Stumble and go forth...

I am thinking what I call intuition is what you call god's will?

Sometimes it could be. God does speak to us inside, in that way. Christians talk of "testing the spirits" since other voices, not friends, but enemies, seeking your ruin, can imitate. There are various ways to test the spirits. One way would be if you feel yourself saying, "If I could just slip some rat poison in that rat's drink", well, that's the wrong spirit you're listening to! It also applies to the teachers and mentors that come into our lives.

Along that line, actually, I have thought of this following often when I thought of you, and never shared it, because I thought I should wait til you show some kind of wanting to know. And really can't say that you have shown any wanting to know about this, yet, I will forge on. So please forgive me if you are not open to this right now, and just ignore it. The thing is, you see, I see that you are very open to many different things. I too, always was. So how do you know who is telling the truth? Because the evils ones are very smart, they know more than we do, and they come disguised as angels of light. Have you heard this before? When they teach, they teach the truth, but they infect it with just enough lie to infect the whole thing. They are smart, so they know how to do this cleverly. But we have a "tell" - John, the Disciple Beloved of Jesus, tells us how (I am picking the old King James Version for this, as my husband and I prefer its poetic turn of phrase):

" Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." - I John 4:1-3

That a "how to test it". The evil ones imitate the things of God, and give truth, so it can be hard to tell the source. So there you go. A useful present you didn't ask for. Some wisdom and truth of God. May you be blessed.

I don't believe any of my relationships were mistakes, more like stepping stones and learning experiences for both of us. I keep all that love with me since it is not something I want to give up. It has only changed form and no longer romantic.

I think even the very wrong relationships that God would not have willed for you had something right going for them, particularly to, in some way, love a soul. God loves souls. To, in hindsight, focus on what was truly good about it and good about that person can't be bad. We are even instructed to focus on what is true and right and beautiful, and what could be more beautiful than a soul, created by God?

When we do something we know in our hearts is wrong - for example, a relationship with a married man would be wrong we can all agree - God would not call us to not feel any love for that soul, but He does want us to repent of any wrongdoing, to recognize with regret what we shouldn't have done, and if possible in anyway, to make amends to those we hurt, and to firmly resolve to avoid that near occasion of sin in the future. (I am not saying you did this! I am just making up an example!). Oh, and of course, we should not feel lust for that married man, whose body and souls belongs to someone else... Plus, to do so would put us once again in an occasion of near-sin. I say that because I am particularly sensitive to training my thoughts in that way, as I was in a very sad and lonely marriage for a long time, and I had to learn to discipline my thought, because I was tempted to lust in my heart, to fall for someone and have that passion take over my thoughts. It seemed to suddenly happen if some random man was simply kind to me, as my husband was not, and I was starved for that. I knew it was wrong. I knew I was only supposed to love my husband (however unloving...). I'd heard that adultery of the heart is still adultery. There was no question. But willing myself to stop thinking about it simply did NOT WORK. I needed supernatural help. I did not have the graces of Confession at that time, being Protestant, and not knowing of it, but I overcame this through my own thought-up form of confession. And it was effective. God helped me do His will when I asked for His help.

The silk purse out of a sow's ear saying sounds a little mean degrading to me.

And he is a very holy pious priest! But he does call a spade a spade. He had a reputation where I lived as "The Most Plainspoken Man in the Diocese". Our longtime bishop, not reputed to be too fond of holiness, or plainspoken-ness, relegated this priest to a small old church building sandwiched between tall buildings in the downtown business district. But people would flock there from all over. He truly had the wisdom of God in him. And no wonder, God gives it generously to those who ask, and surely he asked. When I told this priest my story, when I was at a crossroads re:the divorce, he listened, said very little, but the things he said were loaded with wisdom. Including that. My ex, who is beloved of God, as this priest would have most certainly agreed, brought his sow's ear to our "marriage". [I love to put that word in quotes, because however it looked to the world - and that was everything like a marriage - the Church has ruled: it was not. And so says Heaven, too!]. My ex lived for self, and he needed to put me down to elevate his "self". If that's not a sow's ear, I do not know what is. He was then, and at the time of our vows, a broken man, not capable of keeping the marriage vows he made - vows to "lay down is life for his wife". So by the grace of God, those vows were annulled.

The truth sets you free... it was good to hear the truth from the priest! Those brief, affirming words of truth from the priest were truly healing.

[Eliza Thomason]

The Jews also have had a debate about which books they consider canonical. ...many schools/churches of Christianity spread in the first centuries A.D. ... it is known that they had different opinions on what books were canonical, and that various churches/sects were persecuted for having the audacity to have different opinions. In addition, the books from that time are rather fragmentary and occur in many variations, evidently because these sects were editing the works. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls cache, there are different variations of the same texts. ....

Its true there have always been debate and questioners and always will. But what is substantial is that which has stood the test of time. That would leave you with the Catholic 73 (and the Protestant 66). These other "gospels" and supposed "sacred" works did not stand the test of time. Even in their time! I have read parts of some of these and it takes very little effort to see why they were rejected. But people itch to unearth something unique, special, forbidden, and secret! (When in fact the most amazing things are in plain sight). So such long-rejected works will always resurface.

Here is a brief commentary on the recently hyped supposedly "intriguing" The Gospel of Thomas:http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...hat-it-contain That author gives but one example of the stupidity in it, but there is more!

.

..If the books all appear at once in complete form all at the time of Jesus, I would be more inclined to accept your account of an unchanging Truth.

Or you could have faith in the many generations and many great minds that came before you.


.

But even in the case of Islam, where the early Muslims did a far better job of keeping a consistent text (partly because of intention, but also because not many texts could be made at first), there are variations that would make you doubt it was the timeless word of god, or from the inspiration of god.

I can't offer much on Islam. I feel sorry for those woman. I feel afraid of those radical ones. Of course there are many good people among them seeking to live in the truths they find in their religion. Hopefully the former won't win out, in spite of their determined zeal to.

Not at all. This is the view in Judaism also.

What I mean is that its a Protestant protest to equate our Communion with Saints to calling up the dead in Deuteronomy, even when the distinction is clear. I have never seen Jewish people make this accusation of Catholics. Never.

What evidence do you have it was written by John the disciple of Jesus? (nevermind the person who wrote the gospel commonly attributed to John the apostle). Both claims are unprovable at best, but the attribution of Revelations especially.

That it has ALWAYS been widely accepted. It has stood the test of time.

As to the Book of Revelation, there is a good argument for it as the early Christians' understanding of the mysteries of the Mass. Yes. And its every Mass that this is so, though, its pretty hard to see a lot of times, particularly when the priest has lost his faith and when the congregation is poorly catechized. Yet that does not change the reality of the Mass. Even if the priest has lost his faith - the validity of the Mass does not depend on that. When the priest is pious, it is more evident. Pope St. John Paul II called the Mass "Heaven on Earth". A cogent explanation for the Book of Revelation as Mass is made in the book, The Lamb's Supper, by Scott Hahn, a contemporary Catholic theologian who was once a Protestant pastor.

You can listen here to Scott Hahn discuss the highlights of that book. You can see/hear in that video what a deep man of God Hahn is. He is a brilliantly intelligent theologian and easy to listen to. An unusual combination!

This isn't my attitude at all. Firstly, I am telling you what the Old Testament says, regardless of whether or not Jesus agreed with it. Secondly, I am telling you what the Christians in the books of the New Testament believed about 'Jesus' interpretation of that scripture.

Okay, then.

Thirdly, I am merely expressing the fact that Jesus in the New Testament is contradictory even with himself.

Okay.

Jesus's words can seem contradictory, but really only when you are taking everything in the most extreme literal sense. Our Church teaches that there are different ways to view different scriptures. Literal, allegorical, i.e. A fuller explanation of the Catholic view of interpreting scripture, from the Catechism, can be found here.

... [re: I guess because Moses had a few centuries to think things over... .. he eventually likely realized God knew what He was doing after all. As far as not-sufficient - God doesn't tell us His criteria for sufficiency. Anyway, Moses - he was rather set-apart, don't you think? I mean - horns! ] Aren't you just acting in a way that you described me as acting? .

I was just giving my own personal educated guess on the details of the Transfiguration.

I was quite intentional in my lack of a capital G. I don't have a personal relationship with such an entity. Also, I think even you should not object: the problem comes out of you calling your god, "God", a rather generic name. I could as easily have said that "capitalism only has one god", "Islam only has one god", "the Abrahamic religions only have one god". If I referred to "God" in such instances, you might object as it imply that I consider such gods to have some importance, or that the Islamic god has equal validity with the Christian one. Saying "it has only god" is equivalent to saying "it has a god"...if I had said "Christianity has a God", you would probably also object.

Okay. It was distracting. I do not have all the rules down just right, but there are some capitalization rules, I believe referring to when you are talking to a specific God, as in, "the God of Israel" and not a god in general, the latter of which would not be capitalized. I could be wrong about your contextual use. I simply assumed that because I kept being distracted by the small g, it was misused.

In Hebrews 9:27-28: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation."
Once you die, that is it.

Yup, no reincarnation do-overs.

Now, you used the following verses to proof-text a "punishing God":

Matthew 3:12 "His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Yes. This is in context when he says there will be tares among the wheat. In His church, there will be weeds among the wheat; Jesus says don't pull them out. He will take care of that in the end. Just as Judas Iscariot was among Jesus' disciples and Jesus did not kick him out, there are Judas' "serving" in the Church today. In the end Jesus will sift out who belong with Him and who is on the other side, who chooses evil and to stay with evil, and He will take His own with him. Because we who are with Jesus so easily recognize some of those who are not (the pretenders among us), he gives us instruction concerning it.

Yes, there is a Hell, and its rather punishing, and its eternal. That does not make God a punishing God, though. God is good. Evil is not. In the end, evil will have its place and good will have its place. Truly, truly, it is a choice we make.

God is all good. He gives us a choice between good and evil, as we are aware of both. In the end, we go with one or the other. In the end, we go to a place of eternity. With God, in Heaven, it is all good, all joy, all love. Others choose evil. In Hell there is evil, and no good, and there is no love. Its every man for himself.

Matthew 13:37-42 "He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Yes. But the "lawless" can choose to repent at the last minute, and be saved. So lawless ones do make it to Heaven. If you were reading this only literally, and ignoring all else Jesus said, you could wrongly deduce that no lawless person gets to Heaven. (I am not saying you are reading it only literally. But some folks do that with scripture, well-meaning or not.)

Revelation 14:10 "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:"

A case for the wrath of God. People do take verses of Gods wrath and use it to frighten people, sometimes in order to make the case you must interpret the Bible they way they do. But, yes, the wrath of God exists. God is love, and He is just. Being just and good and loving, would He not have wrath at what is unjust, unloving, and evil? We ourselves experience righteous wrath when a little child is abused. You can imagine His wrath at such injustices...

It seems that you are ignorant of the context of Jewish philosophy.

LOL. I am certainly not an expert on it!

That is a rather peculiar response to my nuanced answer. In short, the bible has many things that are unverifiable, but as the central text of Christianity, if a later text or opinion fundamentally contradicts what the bible says on a point, then the doctrine is internally inconsistent.

Sorry if I missed a nuance. You are welcome to bring up any points you feel I glossed over. Catholic doctrine - it is SO consistent. So say those those great minds who spend their lives studying it! And much humbler minds, too.

The Catholic view of saints makes it very much a doctrine about posthumous saints who are justified via supposed miraculous events, contrary to the Christian attitude that Christians become saints while living, not while dead, and they become saints through their faith alone, not through their deeds. The Catholic attitude turns the Christian view of saints completely upside down.

That is your opinion. That it is completely consistent is the opinion of the ages. It is "The Communion of Saints" as stated in our Nicene Creed. Great minds explain it in great detail, the simple faithful believe it, live it, and testify it.

Perhaps you don't know - I only learned this as I became a Catholic - it is the simple Catholic faithful that petition for the cause of a Saint. In other words, the Church does not sit around and decide which people to make Saints. The naming of a Saint originates from the ordinary people. The people petition the Church, and when the numbers and the petition are deafening, then the Church gives in, and says, "Okay, we will investigate it". And its investigated in a way you would find very scientific and orderly. And its very skeptical! They assume more that the person is not. The process even includes a canon lawyer who serves as a "Devil's Advocate" against the naming of the Saint, and all suspect evidence is collected and that case is made. And then examine evidence submitted otherwise. But it all starts from the regular people who witnessed the life and say, "That person was a Saint". Here is a brief explanation of how a person is named Saint.

I already gave you my answer to that. But if you must continue...
Science now routinely makes people with no pupils see, far more frequently then the Christians allegedly do. Based on your spiel, you should be placing your faith elsewhere.

Routinely? Now I am skeptical that doctors have some way of doing this when there are no pupils at all. At any rate, only the miracles with no scientific explanation are accepted for the cause of canonization.

"Faith" in science...faith in conclusions and made about the observable universe is not really faith at all...and to suggest that there is something insignificant about basing your life only on that which can be observed shows your ideology to be rather empty (although vacuums can at least be observed to exist): rather, your ideology is a non-existent nothing. You are utterly unable to demonstrate something that happens outside the realm of physics: anything you suggest would either be possible to observe and measure, or it would not exist. To start placing your faith in that which cannot be observed is a highly dangerous attitude, and certainly unproductive. The scientific method focuses on falsifiable hypotheses and productive models.

Science's observations I have no question about. Its the "proofs" they claim from their suppositions of their conclusions I find suspect. But I am not one to argue it, and I lack the competence to.

Consider love. Love cannot be demonstrated with physics. Yet, the non-scientific population of regular folk can recognize love when they see it. They even base their lives on it. And most of us do not consider it foolish, but instead, we even live by it. Something that we cannot see.

It may surprise you, but there are many Christians who do not take the bible literally or consider it to be the unaltered message of God.

Not surprising. There are many kinds of folks.

People from different religions and cultures have differing visions during near-death experiences. We've discussed this before. It has nothing to do with how heaven is, but how people have been raised. The biblical account of heaven (in Revelations) only refers to one large city: while it is true there may also be towns outside this, it would rather dilute the impact the image of the New Jerusalem, with its 12 gates for the 12 tribes of Israel and so on if it had towns of lesser importance outside it.

Well, I have read many accounts of NDEs. Some not Christians. Some of course are fakes. There always will be imitators! The ones that seem real have a commonality. Yes, the city is mentioned in Revelation. A city is described, parts of it anyway, in "Anne"'s visions of Heaven, which I mentioned earlier. After I read Anne's visions, I realized they were familiar, like the NDEs I had read when I used to read them more, and it makes sense to me that Heaven woudl have a familiarity to us, and be like what we know. But better!

I am saying that the name attributed to the miracle basically emphasises it as being a heavenly lightshow surrounding Jesus: i.e. the Transfiguration of Jesus is a vision regarding Jesus, not the resurrection of Moses.

Oh, I see. Yes, you are right in what you say, this was not at all about the resurrection of Moses at all. What I said was my own personal supposition.

For example, regional historians said nothing of the event, nor did any Roman historians or Roman civil records regarding crime and punishment.. This is despite there being histories from the same period which discussed even minor events, prophets, messiahs, philosophers and so on, by people who were meticulous in recording anything of note, whether they believed it or not.

Probably neither of us can proof-text the history. The dead who left their graves at that moment was an unusual event in the chaos after Jesus died on the cross, among the earthquakes, the darkness, the huge temple veil tearing, all of which was prophesized. I have never heard of anyone saying that it is some kind of unusual absent thing in the historical record. I have heard it said that there is more historical proof that Jesus said and did everything He is said to have said and done than there is evidence that Julius Cesar ever lived. (and I have never heard anyone question that!) For me, the problem with taking the time to dig up evidence for every jot and tittle questioned is, is it worth it? Is the person really wanting to know, or will they just move on to the next argument against? And its just not a key point.

What about the House of Confucius? He died 500 years before Jesus, and yet his teachings still exist, his family tree is known up to the modern day, he has an extremely large cemetery of family members in his home town that dates to his time and his house was consecrated soon after his death and the Temple of Confucius is now on the site. There is also the Kong family mansion.

He is just a famous historical person whose existence has proof and whose writings survive. He did not found a community that survived. I was referring to an unbroken community that survived 2000 years

The Catholic church by comparison begins with a line of leadership for which there is no contemporary evidence for until Eleuterus, who reigned between 174 and 189 A.D.

I'm confused. These are carefully documented. I asked my husband where you might have gotten this and he says: Peter, Linus, Cletus, Evaristus (as in Mt. Everest, explains my husband), Alexander, Clement - they all became popular Christian names. My husband attributes the confusion to the fact that you are saying "cross" evidence. The early Popes were leading their flock, not granting bulls, dispensations, crowning kings which would put them in those histories as well. But, it doesn't make sense to say there is no historical evidence. The only history is not just political. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but I cannot imagine what you are saying.

These are the popes in order, before Eleuterus, for whom there is plenty of historical evidence. Many of these early popes were martyred for the faith, making them "Saints" of the Church (obviously not every pope has been named a Saint!).
1st Pope: St. Peter (32-67)
2nd Pope: St. Linus (67-76)
3rd Pope: St. Cletus (67-76)
4th Pope: St. Clement (88-97)
5th Pope: St. Evaristus (97-105)
6th Pope: St. Alexander (105-115)
7th Pope: St. Sixtus I (115-125)
8th Pope: St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9th Pope: St. Hyginus (136-140)
10th Pope: St. Pius I (136-140)
11th Pope: St. Anicetus (155-166)
12th Pope: St. Soter (166-175)
and that brings you to the 13th Pope, St. Eleutherius (175-189)

I actually said that Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic:

Oh, I missed that you said that, sorry. But if you are interested in the linguistic foundation of that text, it is completely and totally explained in that Karl Keating exegesis I linked you. Any question is definitively settled there.

This has nothing to do with what "Protestants" say: you have a thing with Protestants.

I have great esteem for my Protestant brothers and sisters. I have a daily devotional I have read and re-read for years, written by a Protestant. I have so much gratitude for all I learned about God in the Protestant Church. I have wonderful friends whom I admire and who inspire me spiritually who are Protestant. That's my "thing".

Also becasue I was Protestant, and I had many of the same arguments you present here, so I know from whence they came. The "Pebble article is PROTESTANT, and it is throughly debunked here - and many other places. Karl Keating article is thorough and readable, so I gave that. It really addresses every single thing you could say about pebble/rock translations. There is nothing more to say on that. And when he gets to this, below - well, you just cannot get a better grasp on context than that.



Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter.

Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context.

Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom.

As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom.

Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind.

He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17).

This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority.

Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.


Subteigh - you just cannot improve on that exegesis!

Yes, Jesus is the rock. Its both/and. Peter is the rock on which Jesus builds his Church. Jesus, our rock and our foundation. Then besides that we have the Church - which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

It isn't a matter of it not being mentioned in scripture...it is a matter of it explicitly being refuted by scripture.

No. No Catholic practice is refuted by Scripture. None. If you think so, you have misinterpreted it. Which is often done! Which is why you need the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth. You need her to explain it to you, that's all.

It says that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. It doesn't say "Joseph never had sex with Mary".

Until. It seems, then, that you are saying that the use of the word "until" in scripture means that afterwards, the thing was otherwise. If that is how you interpret scripture, then also this is true:

In 2 Samuel 6:23 "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death." Are you saying then that she had children after she died?)

And in 1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?

And in 1 Corinthians 15:25: "For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

I don't think you are that ridiculous. Therefore you can see, once again, that no Catholic teaching refutes scripture.

oh, you don't consider Satan to have been an angel then?

When he was an angel, he did not lie. Angels made their choice. Because, unlike us, angels have full and complete knowledge, when they choose, its forever. Some are now still angels, and those others never will be again. Fallen angels are liars.

[Re: my "God's ways are not our ways. What makes sense to us is not always God's sense. What seems impossible to us is not impossible to God. God is omnipotent. And perfectly just. And completely loving, and completely merciful. All those things, in perfection."] This is a lousy ideology, morally.

Most Christians don't disagree on this... not sure what could possibly be immoral here??i

...For me, if something is fundamentally evil in the way it acts .... then I should stay clear of it. If you are so uncritical of what you follow, you could end up doing and justifying anything.

I agree!

If I commit a murder, I should be punished in accordance with the severity of the crime and the level of responsibility I had for my actions.

Sometimes I have questioned if you are just arguing and trying to win an argument and are not truly seeking truth. But in this I see you are sincere! And I am glad; I do not feel I am wasting my time. I want to get the truth out here on the table to the best of my ability concernign what true catholic teachings are, vs. hearsay.. So if you are protesting Catholic, you are actually protesting what we actually teach - not something we don't! What a waste of time and thought that would be, right?

I would not expect to be punished based on whether I believed in god.

God is merciful and of course you should not expect to be punished for that. Many people won't believe in God because they were mis-taught what God is like, and the God written on their hearts is not like that God they learned about, and they don't believe in that one that sounds wrong. They want truth, and they will see truth in its full completeness when they die. Some people purposely don't want to know God because they think God is going to keep them from having fun, or doing what they like. They suspect God would say no to what they want, so they decide, "I would rather believe He doesn't exist". When we die, His existence is clear to us, and we know He is love, and if we desire love and truth, we will have much regret over our foolishness we lived for on earth when we could have instead lived for Love and Truth, because we will see that no earthly think we could have ever wanted is better than God. So there will be painful regret. (which does not belong in Heaven, and we will be able to work out and get rid our regrets in Purgatory first, and we will have time there for however long we think it needs).

Speaking of that moment of truth when we die. Its a moment when we see not only who God is and how He was always with us and how He spoke to us and beckoned us - we also see our own choices and the real truth behind the choices we made. That is often described by NDEs as their entire life flashing before them. The Catholic Church refers to it as "the particular judgment", vs. Judgement Day. There it is, all of it, we comprehend it all, in the light of truth. For most of us there is regrets! I have heard that that regret can be intense against the light of truth and God's love.

I would not expect to be punished for eternity for a crime of limited value,

Of course you should not expect that. It would not be just. However, you might experience great shock of the truth of the extent of that limited-value crime. When our conscience tells us we are committing a crime, we'd best heed it. Because that conscience-pricking crime usually has huge ramifications not only as to how we get damaged, but how those all around us get damaged, and then those damaged others who in turn get affected. We will see what would have happened if we had not turned down that road, whatever road it was, that our conscience told us not to go down. We will regret not listening to it. We will worry for souls whose eternal salvation is in jeopardy because of a destructive path they went down due to some decision/action/inaction of ours. Fortunately our painful awarenesses and our prayers for those souls while we are in purgatory are efficacious.

nor would I expect those who had committed worse crimes to escape punishment merely by being apologetic and because they believed in god

.
Well, I thought I had explained this in the last post, which you are responding to here, but maybe it just went past you. God is not a punishing God. Hell is not so much a punishment as it is a natural consequence. There is not evil in Heaven, and if you hate good and want evil there is only one place for you to go! There are no 2nd chance do-overs back at earth as reincarnation purports. 'It is given unto men once to die and then the judgment." We get one choice. Choosing evil and choosing to turn our back on good here on earth truly puts us in eternal jeopardy because we may choose that, and not good, which we have learned to hate, at the last moment. Yet, yes, as you say: some who commit terrible crimes throughout their life on earth will be in Heaven. But you are not God; you do not know their life and their hearts. God does. [and, you may have done the same, or worse, had God allowed their life circumstances to happen to you]. God can reveal Himself to those at the last moment whom He knows would choose Him if they only knew the truth, and they do choose, and they are saved. But most likely they have work to do before they have any desire to fellowship with the Saints in heaven!

I certainly would not expect such people to be rewarded.

Heaven is not a reward for living a good life! It is a gift of God, who is loving and good. It is earned no by our works, but by the one once-and-for-all saving work of Jesus.

However, we do like rewards. And good works will get rewards in Heaven. Some kind of reward. But Heaven itself is not a reward; its a wonderful gift.

If religion means anything, it should be in the realm of morality, not the supernatural. Sorry if that doesn't make sense.

I think I get it. Yes, religion does teach morality,. It is for our own good to live it, as the One who designed us gives us morality (and He writes it on our hearts!). If we live this way we are in communion with God and with others. If we don't, we are hurting others and thereby God, and are out of communion with both, and its sad, and we have no joy.

I wouldn't consider it justified to torment Anne Frank in the eternal fires of hell for example, especially after escaping being burnt in the ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau, just because she had the "wrong" religion.

Of course not! We can all see that is not a just God!

Really, I think the only way you could even think that Christians think this is that many Christians are not in the benefit of good teachers. Many Catholics are not, too! However, if you are Catholic, you do have the catechism, even if you have bad teachers; you can look it up. So below is what the catechism says on the salvation of those outside the Church. I believe any non-Catholic Christian who has the benefit of a pastor who is a true man of God with a deep and pious faith woudl agree that this is how a just God operates. Yes, all are saved through Christ, and we Catholics say also, all are saved through the Church as well! But not all saved by Christ know him, and not all saved by the church know the Church.

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (quoting, Lumen Gentium, 16).

Also you can read more here.

Further, Anne's sufferings were not useless. As the innocent Christ's sufferings had efficacious meaning, so our innocent sufferings also have efficacious meaning. What the evil one meant for pure evil in Anne's life, God can turn and use for the good. Her sufferings were not wasted. It is a mystical truth.

I also wouldn't consider it justified for a certain former leader of Germany as well as Joseph Stalin to go to an eternal paradise just because they believed in god (there is no evidence that either stopped believing in god).

Ugh! Nor woudl I! While the Church won't say they know any any names of who is in Hell, I think common sense gives us a good guess. When I think of those you mention, and any likewise who "profess" whome we do not see any of Christ in, I remeber this verse:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" Matthew 7:21-23

No, I was thinking of for example Alexander the Great whose body was preserved for at least several centuries: we know for example that 250 years after his death, the preserved remains of Napoleon at least 20 years after his death, the many examples of Buddhist monks whose bodies were found preserved years after they went to caves to meditate, cases of bodies in ordinary cemeteries being found preserved in recent times (e.g. recently, a body that was known to have been buried in a lead coffin was exhumed as scientists wanted a sample of tissue from someone who had died from the 1918 influenza epidemic) as well as various bodies preserved in bogs, ice, or sand, not including cases where people were deliberately preserved. The fact is, when you bury people in conditions that are good for preservation, e.g. three coffins, or in a dry church with no soil, it is not surprising when some tissue is preserved, in some instances, especially if you have a habit of disturbing corpses a few years after death.

That's covered in that book I linked. Preserved bodies are different from incorruptibles. If you want to know the science, its there.

Also consider John Henry Newman: a Catholic theologian I can actually respect, he was a decent fellow. When the Catholics attempted to disturb his body ahead of making him a saint (which happened in 2010)...not one trace of him could be found.

Oh, yes, a decent fellow. No bones, no dust, even? Did they steal his body? Anyway, incorruptibility does not make one a Saint, and there are many, many more Saints than incorruptibles. It is a criteria they ignore, actually. Its respected as a probably sign from God, but when the cause for Sainthood is considered, incorruptibility is not considered. You woudl think it woudl be, but its not. That way they avoid the whole circus of fakes, which of course exist. Always there are imitators! But the actual cases of incorruptibility are very, very interesting. However, its acknowledged as a sign from God. That is why they get exhumed, usually. To check for that possibility. St. Cuthbert was incorruptible for many centuries, then suddenly, after being chopped up by King Henry VIII's pillagers, he corrupted. It is interesting to follow the details of all the different cases in that book, the Incorruptibles.

I've been looking into this blindness case, and can only find this website which is vague on details: http://catholicism.org/another-wonde...no-pupils.html

I'll look it up for you sometime... right now trying to get this answer off, and have to make preps for a family picnic tomorrow.

I did look up the case of Gemma di Giorgi also following on from that, and read that she gained some sight before she even met Padre Pio

But you see, it was only on the way to go to see Padre Pio that she began to gain her sight. As you can read from the plethora pf testimonies on Padre Pio, he had a gift of knowing prayer intentions (as well as things you forgot to bring up in Confession!). It was just one of the gifts he had. He was truly obviously one of those of whom you can saw; 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ in me". And he manifested many of the things of Christ, who promised that these miracles He did and even more we could also do in his name. She had the intention of going to Padre Pio for healing, and even as she went there, she began to see. Becaseu Padre Pio, in such close communion with Our Lord, knew. Padre Pio is an example of how close of a communion we can have with God, if we truly want to live in His will, and not our own.

I did a quick look, here is Gemma explaining how at age 7, she began to gain her sight as she went to see Padre Pio to ask him for prayer for her sight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp9TgyjlnS0

(a person who claimed to undergo stigmata but always in private: it was later found out he had been inflicting wounds on himself with acid: John XXIII at least considered him a fraud).

No. This is not true. You need to read further. Yes, of course there were accusers of Padre Pio, a true suffering stigmatic. Jesus had his false accusers, and his disciples are not spared that. Yes there are many fakes out there - there are always imitators, people who want attention for themselves, people who want to draw attention from the real thing. And when the real thing shows up, people want to detract. People lied and were paid well to lie as professionals that Padre Pio was a fake. It is no gift to self, to be a real stigmatic - one is sure to be persecuted by the very Church they serve! Yes, the detractors were there and yes all the accusations came up in investigations for canonization. Padre Pio was "banned" by Pope John XXIII from the faithful for a time. As was the work of the nun, St. Maria Faustina - who is, yes, now a Saint. John Paul II was devoted to her, and he officially named the Feast Day she was told by Our Lord to begin, Divine Mercy Sunday, the Sunday after Easter, truly a feast day for our times. That pope had both Pio and Faustina, now named Saints and found to be honest and true, at one time on a "forbidden list", "until further investigation". They were investigated and found to be true, and taken off the list.

I am not sure exactly what the "forbidden list", now defunct, included. I think it just said the persons on the list cannot be officially teaching or their teachings cannot be officially used by the Church until an investigation is complete. Because one is allowed to believe in living saints unless they teach proven untruths (which proves they are total fakes because a prophet of God never teaches a single untruth). No one can be named a Saint until after they die. The church will investigate current mystics and pick apart every single thing they write and say whether or not there is any little thing that is against the faith. Anne, and her ministry, Direction for Our Times, and all her mystical writings that are attributed to Jesus, Mary, God the Father Himself*** and various Saints and Apostles of Jesus - all have been submitted for rigid theological investigation and have been found to not say one single thing in opposition to scripture or to the teachings of the Church.

I remember reading that in the UK, only 5% of people who are legally blind are in actually fact completely blind. Also reading about aniridia (being born without an iris), it isn't necessarily a black-and-white condition where in each case, you are completely without irises and completely without sight. It is unfortunate that there is no way of verifying the miracle claims.

It must be unusual to be born without an iris.

***Word of God the Father - I will post some of them here later. I found it particularly amazing.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I have begun a response to your posts here, and put it away for now, and will post it when I have finished, and re-read, and adjusted. A few days maybe since we will entertain guests the next couple of days. I just want to say, yes, what a fine man Newman was! I always think of his quote: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (So he spake from experience, and it was a shock to him, too. But then he also says, “To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” Also I have always liked his phrase from a poem, I believe, "Lead, Kindly Light."

I went hunting for his quotes after you mentioned him. And I found one I loved, and changed my "signature" quote, as you can see here below.

I love it because it is a truth I acted on when my marraige fell apart. I am a relationship kind of person. Blame it on being Libra, or blame it on being sx/so. I had never imagined my adult life as a single, unmarried person. But I picked so wrong that first time. I tried so hard to make it work, but it was impossible. And I understand also now why it was impossible (as my priest said at the time, "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.") I thought I had "Gods choice" when I married him, but looking back, I realized that it was my want, and I projected that onto God - I even had a great story of why I believed it was God who picked us, which I was convinced of (along the lines of, "Our letters crossed in the mail, and we said the same thing..") . But I look back and I know that it was my idea, that I never did seek God's opinion, willing to set aside my own.

So this time I would do it different. I would truly seek God's will, since clearly, as Newman says, I do not know what will really make me happy. God knows. Perhaps God wanted me to be single the rest of my life. So I must prepare for even that. And if I were to marry again, I could never count on myself to "pick" - since I picked so wrong. If I were to marry, God would have to make it PERFECTLY clear. And so I would learn to be happy single. Which was a lot of work and not easy, and it seemed that all the happy single Moms had someone.... Nonetheless, I did have peace, and I never could get too discouraged; He would always comfort me.

And He did pick someone for me. I have told the story elsewhere, and truly, my SLI husband was God's choice. It was unexpected; I did not go looking. Later I found he is my Dual, which made me say, 'So that's why!" since there were not the typical worldly reasons to have picked him! We are well-matched in so many ways, and happy. So therefore I would recommend to anyone, ask God whom you should have. He will show you. (And meantime, waste your time with no one else!) That's my dating advice. Its not easy, but it will get you where you want to go.

I don't agree with everything John Henry Newman said by any means - I just remember liking his attitude towards non-Catholic + non-Christian philosophers for example, and perhaps his not being too dogmatic.

I'm a Libra too (at least in one system!)