Yes and No. He is not the human father because the Father of Jesus is Jehovah (which is how Jesus bypassed the fallen nature of man by having no human father). Joseph is his "father" in sense that he "adopted" Jesus.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003

Answers

.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

well, David,

Joseph had to be his real father on Earth.

So says Romans 1: from the seed of David. So says Isaiah: the branch of Jesse (who was David's father). So says Zechariah: only Kings mounted donkeys and mules in those days for coronations. Remember David's son Absomom got caught in the branches of a tree while escaping on a mule?

Yahweh promised David a long line. Jesus is part of this long line.

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 05, 2004.

"For no man of his [Jeconiah]descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

"He will be great and will be called the Son of (1) the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him (2) the throne of His father David; (Luke 1:32)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

That above is Matthew chapter 1

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

Elpidio,

You deny an essential doctrine... making you un-Christian. This verse, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" refutes your arguement.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

In context, Joseph is the "father" of Jesus because he "adopted" Jesus.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

David,

and who adopted Jesus when he came out of the water after John baptized him?

Whose voice cried: today yo are my Son?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 05, 2004.

Dear david and elpidio,

Please excuse me jumping in to comment.

We know that Jesus was the 'only 'begotten' Son of God' as several scriptures indicate, for example:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matt. 1:18

The lineage in Matthew is Joseph's, the lineage of the King, showing Christ as righteful heir to the throne of David. The lineage in Luke is Mary's, showing Christ's humanity right back to Adam.

In Matthew, one had to be a son and heir by 'right' to be in that line, as Jesus was, being the legal son of Joseph, his mother's husband. He is also a son of David by birth, as Mary's lineage shows.

We, as believers, are adopted children of God by faith, but Jesus is the only 'begotten' Son.

God Bless

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 07, 2004.

David says "He is not the human father because the Father of Jesus is Jehovah (which is how Jesus bypassed the fallen nature of man by having no human father)." But Mary was human, David. How did Christ bypass the fallen nature with a human mother?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 07, 2004.

This is why some Bible versions are inaccurate when they print "God's only Son". This implies that we mortals can never be God's children.

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Yes, Rod, we are all God's children.

Yahweh created one couple to have many children.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio onzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Gail, I have already stated this in the Original Sin thread. Sin is inherited through the fahter. Joseph wasn't the 'real' father of Jesus, so did not pass on the fallen nature

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

A baby in the womb has a separate blood supply than its mother. Jesus had his own blood. The sinful 'seed' of man was what had to be bypassed for Christ to be sinless.

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 08, 2004.

Gillian?

Please explain what you have just posted. If I read you correctly, you are saying that Mary's blood had nothing to do with Jesus' blood. I would like for you to make your thoughts extremely clear to my child-like thinking.(I'm not being sarcastic; I'm trying to get your total understanding.)

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 08, 2004.

Gillian,

The reason Jesus had no sinful nature is because sin is inherited through the father. Jesus bypassed that by NOT having a human father.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

David

i have asked you this before.

the children of the future cloned from women alone will have no original sin.

true or false?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2004.

Ian,

I'm not surprised you believe in that kind of stuff. No, that is just not possible. You need the man and woman.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

david

ad hom aside, it will be possible to clone from a single human being that posses the full set - DNA, chromosomes.

it has allegedly already been done.

noone doubts it will happen.

so, pls answer the question -- will those cloned from a woman be free of original sin?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2004.

Ian,

Don't believe everything you see on tv.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

i don't.

however, human cloning is a reality that we must face up to.

this still leaves the question -- are the clones free from original sin? why will you not answer?

you could answer this hypothetically.

ASSUMING that children are cloned from women alone, would they be born free of original sin?

i am happy to answer such a hypothetical sin. the answer is no.

your answer must be yes. am i correct?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2004.

Ian,

It is not possible period. Only one person has done this, and that was Jesus Christ. All have fallen short, but you keep insist on a "special circumstance".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

David

answer thehypothetical question, please.

sheep have been cloned. why not humans. the technology is broadly the same.

so c'mon David. you can answer the question without conceding the underlying premise.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2004.

Sheep aren't humans. They are not made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). If someone had no human biological father, then he'd have no sin. But we all know that only one man had no sin, and that was Jesus Christ. ALL HAVE FALLEN SHORT!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

I read that the NUMBER of the BEAST is 666. That number also deals with the FACT that cloning is happening. That number--666---has been equated with the atom particles responsible with the DNA components of human cloning. 6 Neutrons, 6 Protons, and 6 Electrons. So, this one guy who thinks he knows the Beast is claiming that Human Cloning is the Beast. Of course, no one will no who the anti-Christ will be until it is too late to do anyting about it from our human side of things.

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 08, 2004.

"Sheep aren't humans."

correct David!

many medical processes are tested first on animals.

did you, at the time, believe that IVF was impossible?

cloning of hujmans is going to happen.

at that point, you will be forced to find another reason to deny the purity of the Blessed Virgin.

that's about it for me. tired of trying to get a straight answer from you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2004.

dear rod,

Sorry for my unclearness (it's an English thing I'm sure *smile*). Whilst I agree totally with David that the sinless nature is handed down through the 'seed' of man and therefore had to be bypassed, it is also the case that man's blood is defiled, which is why our own blood cannot atone for our own sins. I was really commenting on the post about Jesus having a human mother, that fact somehow encroaching upon His deity. Yet a baby having its own blood supply means that Christ's blood was never able to be defiled by sin.

I hope this makes more sense, and again I apologise for my unclarity.

(I have a document by a medical expert that shows the biology of this a lot better than I can explain it, if you would like me to find it for you, it's quite interesting)

God Bless you...

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 09, 2004.

Hi Gillian

No, it's us guys over here with the english stuff that need the clarification.

Well, the potential problem deals with the fact that Jesus was half man and divinity. The idea that His earthly mother's blood would be part of Jesus' blood would settle finely in many theologies. We would find it easy to understand man's own Salvation because the proof was given through Christ' Sacrifice. The one problem would be if Jesus was purely divine without the human side. I think people would have a great difficulty in accepting the Salvation plan if Jesus were only Divinity. But, we too must remember that Jesus took all of our sins upon Himself. He had to power to have sins removed. Where would this put the "tainted" blood?

It seems complicated sorting all of this stuff out.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

dear rod,

As I understand it, for Christ to be our Saviour he had to be fully human and fully divine, and the scriptures clearly show that He is both of course.

To be sinless He had to bypass the sinful 'seed' of Man and any of humanity's defiled blood.

We needed a fully divine Saviour so that His sacrifice for us would be pure and eternal, and we needed a fully human Saviour so that He could make atonement for the sins of mankind, dying as a Man in their place.

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col.2:9

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" Heb.10:5

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Rom. 8:3

God Bless you...

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 09, 2004.

Hi Gillian.

Very good. We are on the same page.

p.s. I feel so special with the "dear rod" salutation. Paul M. used to do that too. I felt I had to wear a neck tie at the computer. I'm just rod and sometimes much worse. But, it is nice so do as you please, Gillian.

James does that too.

.................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

Gillian,

doesn't food create blood cells? Doesn't the blood carry the nutrients through the body? Isn't the baby connected to the mother by the unbilical cord? Doesn't the umbilical cord carry the nutrients which make the blood?

Don't we pass an x chromosome for males and females (males XY, females XX)?

So contamination exists.

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

Elpidio,

Yes, you are correct that various nutrients are passed to the baby from the Mother. Yet it is not the nutrients that carry the inheritance of sin. According to scripture it is the blood and the seed of Man. To explain this better I am posting a rather long document on the blood by the physician Dr. DeHaan:

Blood of Christ The Chemistry of the Blood

Since the Life is in the blood, according to the Scriptures, and the wages of sin is death, sin affected the blood of Adam and caused him to die. Because the blood of all men partakes of the sin of Adam, it can only be cleansed by the application of sinless blood, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. As the first Adam’s sin corrupted the blood of the entire human family, so the pure sinless blood of the last Adam makes atonement for the sin of the world. It is the sin of Adam which brought death upon the whole race because it is Adam’s SEED. ONLY Jesus is called the SEED of the woman, because He was born of a woman and thus His blood was without the sin of Adam. Jesus could have a human body, but He was not a sinner like you and me because He was born of woman by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches plainly that Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin Jewish mother by a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit, wholly and apart from any generation by a human father.

The Bible teaches in addition that Jesus was a Sinless man. Whereas all men from Adam to this day are born with Adam’s sinful nature, and therefore are subject to the curse and eternal death. God provided a way whereby Jesus could be perfectly human according to the flesh and yet not have the blood of sinful humanity. That was the problem solved by the virgin birth.

It is now definitely known that the blood which flows in an unborn babe’s arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the fetus. Yet it is only after the sperm has entered the ovum and a fetus begins to develop that blood appears. After a few hours it visibly develops. After just a little while red streaks occur, denoting the presence of Blood.

It is unnecessary that a single drop of blood be given to the developing embryo in the womb of the mother. Such is the case according to scientists. The mother provides the fetus with the nutritive elements for the building of the little body, but all the blood which forms in it is formed in the embryo itself. From the time of conception to the time of birth of the infant not one single drop of blood ever passes from mother to child. The placenta, that forms the link between mother and child, is so constructed that although all soluble nutritive elements such as proteins, fats, carbohydrates, salts, minerals and even antibodies pass freely from mother to child and the waste products of the child’s metabolism are passed back to the mother’s circulation, no actual interchange of a single drop of blood ever occurs normally. All the blood which is in that child is produced within the child itself. The mother contributes no blood at all.

In Howell’s Textbook of Physiology, Second Edition, pages 885 and 886 it says:

For the purpose of understanding its general functions it is sufficient to recall that the placenta consists essentially of vascular chorionic papillae from the *foetus (the unborn child) bathed in the large blood spaces of the decidual membrane of the mother. The *foetal and maternal blood do not come into actual contact. They are separated from each other by the walls of the *foetal blood vessels and the epithelial layers of the chorionic villae.

Or a quote from Williams’ Practice of Obstetrics, Third Edition, page 133:

The *foetal blood in the vessels of the chorionic villae at no time gains access to the maternal blood in the intervillous spaces. Being separated from one another by the double layer of chorionic epithelium.

And from page 136 of the same book:

Normally there is no communication between the *foetal blood and the maternal blood.

Another section from Nurse’s Handbook of Obstetrics by Louise Zabriskie, R.N., Fifth Edition, page 75:

When the circulation of the blood begins in the embryo, it remains separate and distinct from that of the mother. All food and waste material which are interchanged between the embryo and the mother must pass through the blood vessel walls from one circulation to the other.

And from page 82 of the same book:

The *foetus receives its nourishment and oxygen from the mother’s blood into its own through the medium of the placenta. The *foetal heart pumps blood through the arteries of the umbilical cord into the placental vessels, which looping in and out of the uterine tissue and lying in close contact with the uterine vessels, permit a diffusion, through their walls, of waste products from the child to mother and of nourishment and oxygen from the mother to child. As has been said, this interchange is effected by the process of osmosis, and there is no direct mingling of the two blood currents. In other words, no maternal blood actually flows to the *foetus, nor is there any direct *foetal blood flow to the mother.

How wonderfully God prepared for the virgin birth of His Son. When He created woman He made her so that no blood would be able to pass from her to her offspring. In order to produce a sinless man who would yet be the son Adam, God provided a way whereby that man would have a human body derived from Adam but have blood from a separate source. Conception by the Holy Spirit was the only way the virgin birth could be accomplished. Mary nourished the body of Jesus and He became the seed of David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit contributed the blood of Jesus. It is sinless blood. It is divine blood. It is the precious blood which our Savior was to shed for us for the remission of sins.

*Both foetus and foetal reflect the British spelling for fetus and fetal.

The Chemistry of the Blood by M. R. De Hann MD - Lamplighter Books published by Zondervan Publishing House in 1945 (pages 30-32).

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 10, 2004.

And rod,

I'm glad you feel special. However, I expect a full three-piece suit not just a necktie, then I shall be most 'suited' also.

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 10, 2004.

A suit on me? But, I have a long life ahead of me. Ok, a half life left...

Interesting post, Gillian.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.

Is it possible that Jesus had sin up until his baptism? This would also account for Him being 'the root of David' as well as being the adopted son of God. Just my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for listening:)

-- Tamara (faithnhisword@comcast.net), July 22, 2004.

"Is it possible that Jesus had sin up until his baptism? This would also account for Him being 'the root of David' as well as being the adopted son of God. Just my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for listening:)"

No, Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. The reason Jesus had no sin was because he had no human father, so he was sinless.

Matthew 3 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

If you want to learn about genealogies of Jesus, visit this page: http://www.carm.org/questions/2geneologies.htm

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

With your previous post and this entire thread in mind, do you believe in original sin, David?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

I believe in Total Depravity, rod.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Well, which is it, David? You told me that you were not a Calvinist and now you sure do sound like one. But, I guess I should agree with you. You are depraved, totally. :)

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Rod, I am not a Calvinist. I have told you I am a Christian. My beliefs are commonly known as Calvinistic, and if that's what you want to call me, go ahead.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

I would dare say that it is true; all who believe and accept Christ are His children. Those who reject Christ must surely be "depraved", but not totally lost. His Salvation is offered to all.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Those who believe like a Christian are generally called "Christian". Those who believe like a Calvinist are generally called "Calvinist". I can't see how much clearer this could be, David. The problem is. How can Calvinism be included in the true Christian faith? Man is not depraved. Calvin is because that's what he believed line, hook, and sinker. Do you believe that God thinks us to be depraved? Did He make a mistake in creating us? No.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

What does Calvin have to do with this?

Matthew Slick writes:

Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin. The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine." Calvinism also maintains that because of our s fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23). "

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Only a malicious god would create a "depraved" creature. God is good.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

God created Adam and Eve "good", but they fell from that state. Through Adams disobedience, sin entered the world.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

If Calvinism was my only choice in faith, I would rather be an atheist. I cannot believe that our God created us for His folly. I cannot believe that our God created a little dog that would come to him only because of the length of the leash or the whistle of His call. Man is neither a dog or a puppet tangled up in a leash or strings. If that is the case, why even live in a predestined limbo waiting or desiring a fate that may or may not exist?

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

rod,

I think it is useless to continue discussing this if you don't bother to learn someone's position firstly.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CCvO

Please read that thread called,"Bad Arguments Against Calvinism".

Your arguements are not against David Ortiz, or any other Calvinist, but against The Word of God

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

God created you and me and all those people in our world. Are we all gonna wait a see if we are called? Obviously, some will not be called or there wouldn't be a hell to go to. We can wait by the phone all day long, but I, for one, will start making phone calls. Even if the numbers may prove wrong, we hope that the right number comes around. Or, as in Calvinism, why even bother? For some that number will never exist. Hey, they may never have a phone to begin with.

It sure does sound like a cruel joke played on man. He was created with a lottery ticket to Salvation.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

rod,

I will not reply to you as long as you keep distorting what we believe.

John 6 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Gosh, David, you sound like a Catholic. Yes, we are arguing about Calvin's interpretations of Scriptures. We are talking about a doctrine invented by a man. Suddenly, Calvin is the Word. I am not arguing or disputing the Scriptures. Just as the Catholics provide the early Church fathers' writings as proofs, you provide your church fathers with their writings.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

When have you ever seen me quote Calvin? The Doctrines of Grace are found in the Word of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

"I will not reply to you as long as you keep distorting what we believe. "

Funny. I replied to you when you distorted what I believe. But, I shall leave you alone with your depravity. I don't want to cause any distortions.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Really? Please, find a place where I have distorted your beliefs and I will publically apologize.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

David, you are a non-Catholic. So, why not follow the Apostolic teachings. You have quoted many of Calvin's modern day disciples. And please don't start with the "Who me?" stuff like you know who.

BTW, Catholics are also Apostolic retainers of truth.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

rod,

I do not believe the Roman teachings that have no historical or scriptural basis. Rod, I repeat, we do not follow Calvin. Everyone I have quoted basis their beliefs on the Bible. Jesus was the one who taught the Doctrines of Grace. Your argument is against God, not David Ortiz.

Once again, I ask, please show where I have distorted your beliefs.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

If I am a Catholic, do I worship Mary?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

David are you able to answer and set the record straight once and for all?

If I am Catholic, do I worhip Mary?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Oops....make that worship, not "worhip".

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

You are a Catholic by your own admission. Unless, of course, have you retracted your position?

What you believe about Mary has no basis in scripture. Her Immaculate Conception and Assumption were no taught in the first few centuries of the early Church or found in Scripture.

Look at the parallels between Mary and Jesus:

Jesus Predestined to be Redeemer Mary Predestined to be Redemptrix

Jesus Virgin born Mary Immaculately conceived

Jesus Sinless Mary Kept from original sin and personal sin

Jesus Suffered and died on Calvary Mary Suffered and almost died at the foot of the cross

Jesus Ascended into glory Mary Bodily assumed into glory

Jesus King of heaven Mary Queen of Heaven

Jesus Source of grace Mary Channel of grace

Jesus Redeemer Mary Coredemptrix

Jesus Mediator Mary Mediatrix

Jesus Adovocate Mary Advocate

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Is that a "yes" or "no"? Make it clear so that my child mind can understand.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Do you consider prayer as a form of worship?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Ok, I'll stop the running around all over the playground and get to the point. Your answer eveidently is "yes". But, I do not worship Mary. Plain and simple. You claim that you are not a Calvinist, yet your beliefs seem to align nicely with Calvinism. The same can be seen with the belief in Mary and her role. But, Mary does not Save, Jesus Christ is OUR Saviour. Do you see?

I have never prayed to Mary. I don't know if this will get me excommunicated from the Church, I sense that it will not. But, the fact remains that I have not ever prayed to the Saints, either. I do recognize their roles and histories. I respect that. They have lived as examples of which we can learn from.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

rod,

What do you think of calling Mary by these names:

Mediatrix, Mediatress, Advocate of Sinners, Source of Salvation, Source of Grace, Queen of Mercy, Refuge of Sinners, Medicine of Sinners, Protector guide, Succour of Sinners, etc.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

We don't worship St. Paul, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, and the others, but we sure do believe what they wrote. The same applies to the Saints, but their teachings are found in their example of living.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

What do I think about those Marian titles?

There was a time that I stood outside looking in. Many things didn't make sense and even confused me. I think that those titles become defined when we have the complete understanding. Did Mary do all of those things that are implied by her titles? Or, do people not understand the meanings in the titles?

I think that we must make every effort to understand the meanings behind the titles and not go on heresay.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

It is the same as when you told me to understand one's doctrine. Calvinism shouldn't be confused with your personal beleif. The same goes with Marian beliefs. Do you get what I mean?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Oh, wait a minute. When I was in catechism, I did pray to Mary. I recited the "Hail Mary" at quite a many masses and Boy Scout assemblies. So, I have to admit that I did pray to Mary. But, now in my adult life, I don't seem to pray the same as I did when I was in school.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

David and Rod,

Here's what I think. Prayer is worship. Singing, music, art - these are all forms of worship, adoration of God. We can still do these things outside of worship. One thing that really strikes me odd is the view that's been expressed about religious art - art is not a form of worship??

Peace!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 23, 2004.