Mother Mary??

Interesting point T2U, what does transfiguration mean come to that....

 

Gina, what form does Jesus have now, in heaven? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know. I would imagine he's in the same form he was while on earth, although not in a corruptable body.
This is where the trinity is obvious and shows the distinctness of the three. The Father in heaven, while Jesus is in the flesh praying to him as a distinctly separate part of the Godhood.
Gina

 

Jude,

I must interject just a bit. This number is exaggerated. I have been through this with a couple of Catholics here (I believe T2U was one). They gave me their "source," and upon a little research, this number (10,000-30,000) was found to not be true (not individual denominations). In this number was included as many as 400-500 Catholic "denominations," etc. The author that puts forth this number counts each individual group in each country as a seperate denomination. Thus, say the RCC in 250 countries (this is just an example, not a real number) equals 250 denominations. In reality there are probably anywhere between 750 and 2,000 distinct "Christian" denominations worldwide according this author, including groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (I did not figure out the exact number of distinct groups, but some "denominations" would never be accepted as Christian by orthodox Christians). That is still quite a lot, but not nearly the chaos that some try to paint it out to be.

Not trying to be a know it all, but I am zealous about accurate information being used by all parties!

In Christ,
Neal

 

I'm guessing that is why Jude said "umpteen". Not meaning a number of exactness, but so as to convey "alot".

Looking at all the different conflicting ideas that baptists on this board alone have concerning the nature of Jesus, you must admit that sola scriptura is a concept which produces a wide divergence of competing beliefs, not all of which could possibly be correct.

So the question is, when considering the fruits of sola scriptura, is that what Jesus had in mind when He prayed that we would be one?

 

If Almighty God would have wanted to 'glorify Mary the mother of our Lord' with all of the Catholic doctrines which enshroud her, the Lord Jesus would have had the Apostolate write it down so Christians would have had a genuine, foundational basis for such expansion of the glories of the virgin.

'Mary . . . . magnifies the Lord' [Luke 1:46] but nowhere in Jesus' words does the Lord magnify Mary as to our personal salvation coming from her or any of the other doctrines surrounding the virgin Mary.

One would think that if Mary is Co-Redemptrix with Jesus that she should be able to hammer out her own personal salvation. The Bible declares the opposite. The mother of our Lord said, 'My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.' [vs. 47] Mary needed the same cleansing from the Adamic nature and other sins as we need and presently appreciate. She was not her own Savior; Jesus was and still is her Savior. I do not think that the Bible suggests that anyone of female gender hung on the Crosses on Good Friday.

To be fully Biblical the Roman Catholic Church should have Mary kneeling at the feet of Jesus rather than standing in a saintly white robe with a vail. She was the holy vessel who cared for our Savior before He was born to a sinful world, but beyond that she was not contributor toward the ultimate salvation of our never dying souls.

 

Let's see.....umpteen thousand would at least mean 13,000 or more, which is inaccurate. Yes, there is a lot, but nowhere near as many as has been put forward here by many! Is it alright for gross exaggerations to be perpetuated by any side (Jude, I am in no way accusing you of coming up with an exaggeration and maliciously using it)? Is it alright for any of us to keep silent on something when we firsthand know it is incorrect?

As for the sola scriptura issue, pick that fight with someone else. I have not fully come to a position (though I lean towards it) nor was I trying to defend it. I merely want accurate info being spread, and if I can offer anything to that, then I will. I speak up to non-Catholics (which Jude is) as well as to Catholics. So grind your axe somewhere else.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Now you are ascribing an exactness which may not exist. What is your source that "umpteen thousand would mean at least 13,000 or more"?

It would appear that you may be violating your own standard of exactness.

Unless you can show me scientifically that umpteen is more than thirteen.

 

trying2understand,

Please tell me where I said that Jesus is not God.

 

Please tell me where I said that Jesus is not God. </font>[/QUOTE]These words of yours, in part, caused me to think that you do not believe that Jesus is God.

"You will remember that the Apostles did not declare that Jesus is God, but that He is the Son of God, the Christ (Messiah). So they did not "see" God! Though God was present among them, it was the man Jesus that they saw, and his works and words that made them believe in Him."

There are so many fruitloop beliefs on this board concerning the nature of Jesus, that I don't take for granted that anyone here understands that Jesus is God.

Notice that I originally said that "you seem to fail to understand that Jesus is God", not that you said it.

 

Umm.....common sense. Okay, what is the lowest -teen. Not 12, 11, 10....but 13. Thus, the lowest possible umpteen is 13, which is my lower bound. Now logically, the upper bound of the umpteen is 19. Please notice, I am by no means being exact. Nor am I claiming that umpteen is more than 13, because umpteen very well could be 13. I now have a range of 13,000 to 19,999 which would satisfy the statement "umpteen thousand." Simple, wasn't it?

By the way, I was an engineering major so I think in terms of numbers many times. Now that we have totally strayed from the topic.......

Bottom line, I post because of no ill-will, but simply desire accurate information. Since I have researched this denomination claim before I felt obligated to speak up and shed light on the subject. I accuse Jude of no ill-will nor do I really believe that he intended what he was posting to be exact. Yes, there are a lot, but nowhere near as many as has been perpetuated here before. I don't know why you don't like me stating my findings about this denomination number. There is no agenda I am pursuing except that of truth. Is that wrong?

In Christ,
Neal

 

Since "umpteen" is not a real number, why can't it fall somewhere between .0000013 and .0000019?

I have no problem with whatever numbers you want to put out for denominations.

My guess is that any number greater than 1 is higher than God wishes. Certainly it is a higher number than Jesus prayed for.

 

Sorry, I am under the impression that teen means something, especially when it is attached to "thousand" (thus your argument that it could be between .0000013 and .0000019 is incorrect, see that would have to be umpteen thousandth ). When I personally see umpteen I see _________teen. You know, thirteen, fourteen, etc. That is MY understanding. You have a DIFFERENT understanding of it. I explained my understanding to you rather clearly. You have explained yours. Let's end this silly discussion now.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I am not putting out my own numbers, but rather what I researched from the source I believe either you or Thessalonian gave me. I do believe God wants 1, but I do not even see that in the Catholic church. I have personally heard varying opinions on varying topics. Using your logic, should not God have clearly laid out everything that has to do with him and the church clearly so there would be no variation on any theological issue? Only then would all believers truly be one.

 

Scratch that comment about umpteen thousandth, as I see that you have too many decimal points. However, my point still stands, that ambiguous language leads to many interpretations!

In Christ,
Neal

 

He did when He gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose.

You are looking for it in written manual (that is not what the Bible is, but that is what sola scripturists have made of it) rather than in the authority which God gave to His living Church.

 

Then why are there liberal, moderate, and conservative Catholics (theologically speaking)? Isn't Mel Gibson a Catholic who rejects the current pope (I am little fuzzy on this)? Why is there a debate even amongst Catholics about celibacy? Why is it I can see two Catholic priests on TV, just like two Baptist pastors, disagreeing on various topics and interpretations?

In Christ,
Neal

 

You may have said in the one sentence that I "seem to fail..." But in the next you say in a declarative statement what you mean by the first sentence, then follow up with sarcasm. Your message is quite clear.

Now you are backtracking trying to slither out of the doodoo that you jumped into! How funny!

 

Folks, can we please try to focus on the original poster and his questions? I can't imagine this is helping him much in what he's going through.
Gina

 

I apologize for hijacking this thread. I will start a different one.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Now that is a very good point.

Is it "possible" that having Mary be the only human to live and die "Sinless like Christ" was a matter of such non-importance of such low-worth that it was not "worth mentioning" in scripture? Is it possible that John the baptist is praised and Stephen in praised and but Mary does not "deserve" any mention at all about being sinless??

Is It possible that Mary's mother ALSO deserves not "a sintle word" about giving birth to a sinless child? Could it be that all these great ideas - are not "even worth mentioning" when it comes to scripture?

Is it really so "likely" that Jarius' daughter and the Widdow of Nain's son etc all deserve to be mentioned as raised from the dead - but the assumption of Mary gets NOT even a mention?

Are these events really so worthless as not even to be mentioned AT ALL?

Notice by "contrast" that those who DO belive in these myths consider them to be SO WORTHY that you would think Christ has taken a back seat to these events. But in scripture they get "not a word".

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Try to stay focused.

When a non-Catholic observes that Catholics reject "sola scriptura" - it is only because Catholics TEACH that they reject "sola scriptura" as the sole basis and test of doctrine.

Get it?..

I suppose I could "accuse" you of not believing in the "Trinity" -- but simply tossing that out on the table does not "make it true".

For that charge to be "true" the RCC would actually have to have some "position" that they took and promoted as opposed to the Trinity.

So your statement above - having no support at all, fails.

This was a good strawman on your part. But as in most RC positions - it is "Wrong".

Both the OT and NT are filled with illustrations of the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy given to people that do not participate at all as Bible writers.

In fact in 1Cor12 there is nothing at all said that to be a prophet you must write some text of scripture.

Your entire premise is flawed for making your failed argument.

Sola Scriptura is the principle of judging all doctdrine by the Bible "alone". That means that even the prophets listed in scripture were judged by the Word of God. That means that any person today with the 1Cor 12 gift - of prophecy - would have to be judged "sola scriptura" and any doctrine adopted today - can only be defended, "sola scriptura".

This is exactly what the RCC denies.

In Christ,

Bob