Mark wrote:

What in the world are you talking about!? Mary was filled with God's saving grace from the moment of conception. MetL,

Where in the world can you come to this conclusion?

I'm getting it from the Bible! κεcηαριτομενε, Greek for "full of grace". Used in Luke 1:28 to describe Mary, and in John 1:14 to describe Jesus. "Highly favored" is a bad translation of the word.

Here is a page I found that goes into greater detail with this Greek word: http://www.catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

Here's something else I found:

Quote :

Luke 1:42 - "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb,
Jesus." The phrase "blessed are you among women" really means "you are most
blessed of all women." A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative
in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then
Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone).
We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these
divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

Mark, how much of the new testament have you read? Would be good if you got to know it really well.

I found an article that hits the nail on the head for why "protestants' as we are called are a bit not into the Mary thing.

Before Christ died and rose again people were only visited by God, they did not have the holy spirit continuously in them.

I respect Mary, as doing what God willed of her in a time which being unwed and with child was massively risky to do. For that I am grateful and respectful. Its says absolutely NO WHERE in the bible to consult anyone but God in prayer. You need to pray yourself directly and ask other believers also who are here on Earth.

article:

Question: "Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?"

Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any Biblical basis.

The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."

1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in Heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). The one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel was not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is plainly clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for you. One has a strong Biblical basis, the other has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in Heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God's throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

^^ Amen.

therockismighty wrote:

Mark, how much of the new testament have you read? Would be good if you got to know it really well.

Well, I've read all of it (I'm guessing Mark has as well), as have many people who ask saints for prayer. But anyway, I'll respond to particular points below.

Quote :

I respect Mary, as doing what God willed of her in a time which being unwed and with child was massively risky to do. For that I am grateful and respectful. Its says absolutely NO WHERE in the bible to consult anyone but God in prayer. You need to pray yourself directly and ask other believers also who are here on Earth.

To this I'd say a number of things. First, the Bible never says NOT to ask those who are already with God for prayer either, so if it is silent, we cannot infer something one way or the other based simply on Scripture. Besides this, the claim that the Bible alone is sufficient for doctrine (sola Scriptura) does not hold up, for all kinds of reasons. Seeing this was one of the main things that got me to explore ancient Christian traditions (who, BTW, take all of their teteachings to be CONSISTENT with Scripture--Catholic teaching, in fact, holds that there must be Scriptural support--though sometimes more explicit than others--for soemthing to be declared dogmatically).

Besides this, Scripture DOES tell us that deceased saints and angels are involved in prayer. Revelation shows angels and the elders delivering prayers to God. Now, granted, it does not say specifically that they were asked to do this, BUT clearly this shows they can be involved in the process, and this would make them intercessors for us in at least that sense. In addtiion, the martyrs souls' are depicted as asking God to intervene on Earth in venegeance for what was done to them--so it appears that they are aware of what is going on on Earth, and can petition God in various ways. (BTW, the way in which others intercede for us is different than the way in which Christ is alone a mediator--the view is that all mediation/interecession done on our behafl by otehrs is THROUGH what Christ did for us--in other words, their intercession would be of no avail if Christ had not died. He is the ultimate source of all mediation with God. But whenever you contribute to another's relation with God, even now, we are "mediators" in this sense. In any case, when the article below which I include at the end here says that no one other than God can hear our prayers, this certainly is reading into Scripture--Scripture does not DIRECTLY say that they can, or cannot. However, we DO know that they have awareness of things on earth--so why couldn't they be aware of prayers as well? And why couldn't they pray for us? Indeed, if we are all family throguh God, then it seems that to say we are completely cut off from them by their death actually shows very little confidence in the grace of God, particularly for those who are nearest to Him even now. As for the story form Samuel, one must bear in mind that OT cases must be understood in terms of Christ not coming to Earth yet--so if intercession of the saints and angels is in the context of being with Christ in Heaven, then it is possible that what becomes possible after Christ's ascension is different than before His birth. In fact, it is somewhat vague as to what actually happens to the souls of righteous men in the OT before Christ--strictly, they are not to be thought of as saints in the same way, because they have not yet been glorified by Christ. We see some indications that OT men may go to Heaven before Christ, BUT as far as I can tell, it is not clear. There is the idea of Christ descending to the abode of the dead after the crucifixion, perhaps to fully sanctify the righteous who had already die--some of whom apparently are then resurrected at the time of His death, etc.--see that it says those righteous who died had come back to life after His death. So, the status of seeking the dead for assitance in the OT would be different. Besides all this, samuel was conured up by a medium, which is strictly prohibited--this is not exactly the same as asking one for intercessory prayer for oneself. In fact, one could argue that going through a medim shows a lack of faith in God, and trying to make it a matter of magic which we control, rather than a matter of divine blessing made availabe to us. But in any case, OT cases might well be different than those after Christ's time on Earth.


Hebrews also tells us we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses (and Hebrews in general speaks of the sactifice of Christ as it is witnessed by God in Heaven). In the OT, God's cloud marked His presence with the Jews, so one suspects that this reference indicates that the saints are with God helping us. (Look at the role the cloud plays in Moses' time--it guides them in their journey, it hovers over the tent for the ark, etc. which prefaces Christ's presence in the Eucharist, BTW, etc. etc.)

Also, if we believe that those who have died in Christ are with God in Heaven, then wouldn't they have an even more perfect awareness of God than we have? And why couldn't they in this case pray for those on Earth?

In short, nothing in Scripture explicitly prohibits it, and there are allusions to the cocnept which make it entirely plausible. Beyond this, we have the traditions of the Church (NOT just Catholic, but ALL ancient churches) who have since very early on asked saints for intercessory prayer. Paul himself tells us in 2 Thessalonians that there are teachings to be passed o nthat are not written down, and the promise that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the church even after the time of the Apostles makes it very reasonable that certain implications of Scripture will be broguht to life as the Church needs them. This does not mean that just any development is given the green light--there are certain measures in place, attested to both in history and by Scripture itself, for how to adjudicate these developments. This has to do with hte idea of apostolic succession as a proper practice conjoined with Scripture, but I won't get into that here.

Before the hack yesterday, I had a good deal more about Mary, but I can save that for later.


graybeardheadbanger

Quote :

article:

Question: "Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?"

Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any Biblical basis.

The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."

1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in Heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). The one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel was not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is plainly clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for you. One has a strong Biblical basis, the other has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in Heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God's throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

The Blessed Virgin Mary is free from all sin.
Therefore she never died. At her Assumpion,
She was taken body and soul into Heaven.

As the Mother of Jesus Christ she is our
Mother also.
She is to be the new Eve. Eve fell into
original sin.
Mary never did.

Mary never grew old and died. Without
sin there is no death.

She is the Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Jesus spoke from the cross to Saint John,
" Woman behold your son. Son behold your
Mother." She is our Mother also!

Those who hate Mother Mary will be damned.
Those who love her will be saved.
She is your Spiritual Mother. Just Pray!

Pray to her and she will deliver you from sin,
with Christ in her arms.
Men, she will give you "one" of her Spiritual
Daughters.
EWTN.com has knoledge about Mary.
God Bless! Vigilance Saints Arise

My response got erased in the hack yesterday, so I just wanted to clear up that RC teaching does not mandate belief that Mary never died. It does hold that she was assumed bodily into Heaven, but the question of whether this was without or after death is left open ended. As the Eastern Christian tradition has a long standing celebration of her dormitiion (falling asleep), it seems most likely htat she did die. The non-Catholic East does not, BTW, absolutely require belief in the Assumption, BUT it is generally accepted by them, though not required to be so.

Just wanted to clarify things a bit, graybeardheadbanger

Thank you for your response graybeard, I do not agree with you but can understand you viewpoint and respect you.

Good post GBHB^ I am glad to see some discussion on the subject.

I thought that I would put in my 2 cents worth on the subject. More or less food for thought on Mary.

1) Judge a tree by its fruit. Jesus stated this, right? Take a look at the healings and miracles in Lourdes France. Millions of people have been healed of disabilities an illnesses for over 100 years. This is definitely a good thing where one can see God's healing power.

The importance of Lourdes is also theological in that it is the site that a poor peasant girl, Bernadette, saw a vision of Our Lady. At that time, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had not yet been articulated by the Church, BUT had been discussed in scholarly circles. Our Lady stated to Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception." The question is then, why would God decide to honor a place where a "sinner" has stated that she is the Imaculate Conception (born without Original Sin)?

2) The Gospel of Luke is a good gospel to look into the early years of Jesus and Mary. In the original text when Gabriel appears to Mary, He says, "full of grace." Now, the actual meaning is more along the lines of "has always been full of grace." This would give support for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

If you look at Mary's Song (Magnificat) in Luke 1:46-55. You can see that she states, "For behold, all generations shall call me blessed" She is not merely a character in the Nativity, but a blessed person beyond the rest of us humans.

The point I want to make with this is, who else has been called blessed in such an everlasting way? I mean, Gabriel stated that she was full of grace (if you are full of grace, by necessity you would be devoid of sin methinks) and that the Gospel states that "all generations shall call me blessed."

3) Mary is not a replacement or even someone to compete with God. Mary ALWAYS points to Jesus. That is what she does. Take a look at the wedding feast in Cana. The host ran out of wine and asked Mary for help. What does Mary do? She asks Jesus to perform a miracle. What does Jesus say? "My time has not yet come" (indicating beginning public ministry). In turn, Mary performs an act of Faith that Jesus will perform a miracle by telling the servants to do whatever Jesus asks. She did not TELL Jesus what to do, she showed faith that God would provide. As we know, Jesus DID perform a miracle EVEN THOUGH he had previously stated that His time had not yet come. To look at it further look at John 2.

Everyone that I know that has harbored a true devotion to Mary has ALAWAYS had a deep and profound love for Jesus. That is what we as Christians strive for, a deeper relationship with Christ. That is really our only motive for existing.

Just a question for those that stated that Mary was a sinner: is there an example where she has sinned (turned from God)? If not, how can you say that she is a sinner?

God bless,

Sean

I have read (completely) several Epistles, one Gospel, all the Catholic Letters, and Revelation. I have read in part everything in the NT, however.

What happened to half the thread?

Hi--here are some follow up thoughts. To the Rock, I appreciate your comments, and hope that you'll think through what some of us our writing here and continue to offer counter perspectives, ask questions, bring in Scripture, etc. (Mark, BTW, what's missing in this and other threads are the posts that were made after back-up was saved--all the later stuff was lost from last night's hack). Anyway....

As mentioned in the posts erased from yesterday, an important aspect of understanding why, from a Catholic perspective, Mary is not worshipped is this. To summarize Kimberly Hahn (convert to Catholicism), Protestants hear prayers to mary (requests for prayuer, actually), hymns, praiseworthy statements, etc. For Protestants, these activities constitute the heart of worship (or very close to it). For the ancient churches, however (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, etc.) the heart of worship is communing directly with the body and blood of Christ in Holy Eucharist (who offers to the father a sacrifice of praise). No Catholic would say that we partake of Mary's body and blood in communion. This is reserved to God alone. As I heard an Orthodox priest once explain it, Protestant worship doesn't have this dimension (or doesn't see it as the heart of worship), and thus in a sense, there is something beyond what they can offer to Christ which they are lacking. This doesn't mean that God doesn't bless them for what they offer, etc.--it's just that there's even more to be had, al to the glory of God.


Something else to consider. Early Fathers saw clear parallels between Mary's and Noah's ark, and the ark of the covenant, and the temple housing the Holy of Holies. I can elaborate on details, but you can probably see the connection. God is present in the ark, and His presence is signified through the manna, the rod of Aaron the priest, etc. In Mary, the actual Bread of Life ()Jesus), who is the high priest, is present. The OT images prefigure the NT, as I'm sure readers here realize. In any case, the temple had to be very pure. The holy of holies had to be consecrated, and there were very precise and careful purification rites which had to be fulfilled for the one's who entered, and for the sacrifice itself (as well as for the ark of the covenant). The ark of the covenant, and the temple surrounding the Holy of Holies, were elaborately decorated with angels, who made of the strongest wood (incorruptible virtually). For the Fathers, this signified that Mary required similar purification, and that she must be consecrated for a particular purpose (Jerome cites Ezekiel 44, which says only the "prince" may enter into or out from the doors of the inner court, which to Jerome suggests that Mary's womb , as the one the temple prefigures, could not be entered into by any man, or the home to other children. Some people would say this seems to be reading a lot into Scripture, but those who read Scripture in many layers see the imagery as almost obvious--the OT prefigures the NT, and the reality of the NT far surpasses the images which prefigure it. If the ark, ark of the covenant, and temple had to be purified, how much more so would this be true of Mary. The notion that she was "full of grace," which as Mark pointed out yesterday apparently uses a Greek word used only for Mary and Christ, emphasizes this.


Now, I would not say that this necessarily makes teachings about the Immaculate conception undeniable,. BUT I would say that it certainly provides plausible Scriptural support for these concepts, and actually idnciates a richer and more profound understanding of Scripture than is offered by not keeping the parallels in mind.


To jump ahead, in Rev., we see the woman whogives birth to the child who slays the beast (clearly Christ) has the moon beneath her feet, is cltohed with the sun, and wears a crown of 12 stars (clearly representing Israel and the new Israel, the church of the Apostles). If the child is Christ (which is clear), wouldn't the woman be a figure for Mary? And she is portrayed as a queen, and she is crowned by the Church. (There are also parallels between Mary and the Church, but I won't get into these here.) It also refers to the "other offspring" of this woman. It would seem that this refers to all those who follow Christ--so in this sense, the woman is regarded as the mother to all who believe. Thus, it seems most appropriate to recognize Mary as our mother, as well as of occupying a royal place--though once again, only possible throguh tbe grace of God, who alone is to be worshipped.


We also must keep in mind that Elijah for sure, and apparently Enoch, were taken up to Heaven. Enoch was said to be particularly righteous, and Moses (who captained the ark, which prefigures the ark of the covenant, and the Church) was said to be "blameless." In any case, we know that certain particularly holy individuals (Enoch and Elijah) were taken up to Heaven, apparently without tasting death (once agian, Catholic belief does not requite no death for Mary). Given her special fullness of grace, if these men could be so rewarded by God, it does not seem a stretch to imagine that Mary, as even more consecrated, couyld receive similar treatment). There is the question of course as to why Scripture doesn't report this---this would require a greater discussion, which I can gladly get into if desired, about how to understand the role of Scripture in relation to the Church. (Besides, if Mary is compared to the woman in Revelation, one wonders if such a woman surely would be in Heaven through some especially glorious way--yes it is a propehcy about the future in certain respects, BUT it transcends time--clearl;y the child was already born, etc. It captures past, present, and future in the way of God).

Anyway, I'll try to say more regarding the Assumption. I will say that I can see room for doubt with this teaching, more than some other Cahtolic teachings. However, there is also enough reason to accept it as possible that I personally was not compelled to resist becoming Catholic on the basis of this one teaching. And accepting it helps shed light on a great deal of other theology which I also find to be correct--for example, if Mary parallels the church, Her assumption would fit the ultimate vicotry and indefeasibility of the Church, etc. Notice how Christ says that the GATES of Hell will not prevail agains thte Church. This is odd--He doesn't say swords or weapons, but "gates." but gates are used to conquer (prevail) at all, but to keep things out. Just as the ark was only temporarily about protecting Noah and the animals of the world form danger, but more importantly it was from it that life re-emerged and the world was restored, the Church is not ultimately aobut protecting us from evil, but about transforming the world unto the glory of God, by bursting into the seams of dark places, to where even the rocks in tucked away corners will cry out "Hosanna" to the glory of Christ. Aparently the sun beams out from Mary--from her womb, the child kills the dragon, and the world is eventually transformed.


Also, consider this. IF Mary was specially consecrated, and IF she had free will (in a way a Calvinist might not grant), then it raises the question: was Mary's free cooperation necessary for her to remain properly purified, so that she could be a proper temple for the body of Christ? If she had chosen to eject this grace and sin, could Christ have come into the world? It's an interesting question. IF she had free will to cooperate with saving grace, it does suggest that we very well might not have been saved if it was not for Mary choosing to do what was right. She needed to be given this grace--that is to God's glory, and not hers. However, if she was free to abuse it, it seems to me that Christ may not have come into the world, and we would not be saved. In this sense we can see that she is indeed an important "mediator" to our salvation, though once again, even her role requires grace which originates from God. In this sense, Christ alone remains the SOURCE of all mediation, though she participates in it, and makes it efficacious, in a special way. At the same time, all of us participater in mediation to a lesser extent when we work for the cause of the Gospel--as even Paul himself writes, he fills up in himself what is lacking in the wounds of Christ, for the sake of reaching others for the Gospel. Christ's saving work can only reach its proper place through the cooperation of Paul--this is an amazing thing to ponder. This is why we are ambassadors of Christ--not simply because we spread the word, but because we are conduits without which some may not be saved. How much more true this is for Mary, without whom Christ may not have been able to come into the world at all.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss, graybeardheadbanger

I notice some like to say "Mary isn't the mother of God"
So, then which of the following necessary consequences is true?

1. Jesus isn't God
2. Mary wasn't His Mother
3. Jesus is not fully God and fully Man
4. Jesus was God before the Incarnation but not when He was in the flesh

Mark, it's simply that Mary was the mother of his flesh.
Body and soul are 2 different things. Mary was a carrier. That's all. She had nothing to do with the creation of Christ because it is written that Christ existed long before any humans, including his earthly mother. Then, how can Mary be his mother, if he lived before her? The same thing happens when David talks about Jesus as his savior (or master, i dont remember). How can that be if Jesus was to be born a thousand years later?

Mary gave birth to Jesus, 100% human and 100% God. You are drifting extremely close to heresy, if you aren't keeping heresy already. Nestorianism is what I'm seeing.

Of course Jesus is God. I don't know what's so hard to understand Mark. You can't seem to grasp the idea that soul and flesh is different. Obviously, Jesus' flesh wasn't godly because he had the occasion to sin like us all because of the corrupted nature of the flesh. Jesus' flesh was corrupted too (leaning towards pleasures etc). Yet He never fell into temptation because of how pure He is. He was God in a human body.

God The Father put Jesus (wholly God) into Mary. She contributed to the creation of his flesh in the womb.

Jesus's flesh was not corrupted. You are so out of touch with the mainstream of Christianity for century after century, you don't even KNOW the ancient teaching. The name "Mother of God" was given to combat the Arians.

you're right mark, i dont know anything. i just believe what ive been told...

if Jesus was tempted, his flesh was corrupted. If his flesh was perfect, he wouldn't even look human. He'd look like the angels who emanate light and are clothed in the purest white (like described in the bible). it's logic. But whatever, you know more than I do right?

Do as you please. I dont give a f.

Temptation is not a sin, and it is spiritual, having nothing to do with the body. You sound like a Gnostic or a Manichaen.

? Iver never said that temptation was a sin.

Sin comes from the heart but is linked to the body. Because the flesh is what gives us pleasures.

Pleasure is not evil, at all. If a body is so necessary for sin, how could Lucifer and 1/3 of the Angels have sinned? Wouldn't by the same logic envy not be sinful, because it never brings pleasure?

Love the Blessed Mother of Christ as you love your own Mother.
All you have to do is respect and listen to Roman Catholic tradition.
We recognize "The Social Joys of Heaven." Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
This is the Communion of Saints. No matter what the modern man says,
The Church, canonizes Saints every year. Stating, if anyone is in Heaven,
this Soul is. Why does the new man cast aside 2000 years of Catholic
practice? Like saying I'm right, and a billion olden day people are wrong.
Go to a Catholic book store and start reading about how Saints lived
and died in grace. Start watching EWTN.com Order books also.
You, for the record, don't try to change history. Embrace it!
The Saints are in Heaven and they do hear our prayers. It's a mystery.
Read a "Catholic Bible." Lets have faith in Church teachings and Sunday Mass.
Mary never died. She was taken Body and Soul into Heaven. A mystery.
God's mercy endures forever. There is no sin "you" make that God will not forgive.
I bet you don't even know what a deadly "mortal sin" is. Good man that you are!
You love Jesus. Now love His Catholic Church and it's true traditions.
Talk to an old wise Priest, a living Saint. Go to confession soon.
God Bless. And if you are a die hard Protestant, get right with God.
Vigilance Saints Arise

As with many disagreements, much confusion occurs due to a lack of clarity about certain terms, concepts, etc. This seems to be one such case. A few things to clarify:

1) first, Hero, you distinguish Christ's body from Christ's soul, presumably implying that his soul pertains to His divinity. Actually, this view IS heretical--it falls under the heresy of Sabellianism, I believe (I'll have to review). The fact is, to be human means to have a human soul, so if Christ had a truly human nature, He must have a human soul. In fact, Christ would not have a human body at all without a human soul, as matter is formed according to the kind of soul informing it.

2) Per 1 above, the teaching since the Council of Chalcedon, is that Christ has two co0mplete and distinct natures, human and divine, united by one divine Person, the Logos. Christ's human nature is a human soul informing a human body. However, His personality is that of God. There are still some complications here that have never been resolved, as it seems to separate personhood from nature, normally they go together in humans. Still, the fact is, He had a human soul, and His personhood is different than His soul. If He did not have a human soul, He would not have been human. This also follows the rule of Athanasius and others---that cannot be redeemed what is not assumed (i.e. taken on by the Person of Christ). So, the incarnation must include a human soul, in order for OUR souls to be capable of being saved through Him.

3) In htis case, Mary is the mother of Christ's human nature. Soul is a bit trickier--it seems for all of us, our souls are in some sense immediately creat5ed buy God. BUT, they result from the presence of matter, which is established in the physical world. Thus, Mary provided the genetic matter, if you will, for Christ's body. Without a body, the Son could not have been incarnate (by definition). Therefore, she is the mother of God in respect top His body, but not in respect to His divinity. However, the Son even now is united to His body--therefore, now wherew the Person of the Son is, there is His body. So, the God-man Christ does in fact have Mary as His mother. He would exist as Person without her, BUT He could not exist as INCARNATE person without her. Because He has chosen to be assumed in the body, He essentially chose to be dependent upon her to exist as He now is. Without Her, Christ as INCARNATE son would not be. Without her, we would not be able to be saved. Our destiny is therefore
tied up in her obedience, just as it is now tied up in our own obedience.

This also indicates that Mary was far from just a "carrier." His reality AS INCARNATE (not as divine person, but as divine person conjoined to the flesh)
is genetically linked to her. In fact, unlike other humans who receive genetic material from human mother and father, He has His humanity from her alone. In some senses, her unity to Her son, as human being, is even greater than that of other mother's to their children.

Now, as for the point of Christ's temptation. Remember, Christ was free from original sin, so He was not subject to the effects of the Fall, except perhaps for what He voluntarily took on for our sakes. He was subject to desire, BUT all tmeptation

Hero wrote:

Sin comes from the heart but is linked to the body. Because the flesh is what gives us pleasures.

Come to think of it, this sounds like an scrambled assortment of ancient heresies.b

Sure, I agree with you bearded man.
So, Mary is the mother of Jesus (the incarnate). But not the mother of God (spiritually). (i dont think i ever disagreed to that)

As far as temptation goes, I believe that Jesus had as many occasions to fall into sin as any of us have. But he did not. This is why he is so pure and we need to take example on Him.

@ mark, pleasure isnt evil when it happens in the right circumstances. if you have sex with your wife its perfectly fine and its even greatly encouraged. however, if you lust after women and sleep with many partners you commit sin. sin that is fueled by pleasure. or the homosexuals who use sodomy. its a misuse of a pleasure that was not made to be perverted this way. the perversion of the pleasure and the circumstances in which it happens make it a sin.

Mark wrote:

Hero wrote:

Sin comes from the heart but is linked to the body. Because the flesh is what gives us pleasures.

Come to think of it, this sounds like an scrambled assortment of ancient heresies.b

well then what the hell are you waiting for, dude?

come and set me ablaze. burn me alive. purify the earth of my wicked presence! send me to hell for my unforgivable sins!

Oh please. Heretic isn't an insult. Nobody's going to set you on fire for it. Labeling you this is to bring you to orthodoxy.