I did some research on the miraculous image of the tilma in Guadalupe. When I saw the similarity of the statues of Guadalupe of the BVM of Spain with the miraculous image of Mexico, I stop my research immediately. At the back of my mind, there were stories about Franciscan created the image and brought it to Mexico to converts the Indians there. I have two questions.

Could it be possible that the Franciscan does have good intention of creating a beautiful image of our Lady - similar to their beloved shrine in Spain, hoping to get blessings from Mother Mary to convert the Indians. Over time there were many converts and at the same time, legend begins to take place with regards to the image. Over time, legend become confused with reality. Because of no real documentation or eyewitness account documented, the legend become an accepted phenomena.

Next question, why would our Holy Church despite all evidence pointing towards possibility of legend (a. Even bishop Zummaraga did not even account about such important matter in his log book, b. the similar looking image with Guadalupe of Spain, c. even the Abbot from the Mexico taking charge of the image dismiss the image as a hoax and Juan as non existance), endorse the image as miraculous.

Thank you for reading and providing an answer!

- Anthony

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), August 15, 2004

Answers

I hate to think that Guadalupe is a hoax -- I guess for sentimental reasons -- but the nice thing about being a disillusioned Catholic and budding agnostic is that I no longer feel defensive when somebody criticizes a Church-approved miracle or dogma. I can look at it objectively and dispassionately.

As a practical matter it's easy to see why the Church would approve the apparition. It was a great propoganda tool that led to the conversion of millions of Indians.

As one atheist commented about the Resurrection: It doesn't make any difference whether or not it's true. All that matters is whether or not people believe that it's true.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004.

During our short stay on earth, just believing that it is true may be enough to carry us along; but once that brief part of our existence is over, the question of whether or not it is genuinely true will make an eternity of difference. Of course, atheists don't believe that life continues after biological death; and when they finally come face to face with reality, it will be too late for them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2004.

Wwll to be honest, your scenario isnt relaly a hoax..its a legend that built arind a real event. In the scenario, a Fransiscan built the shrine and modled it agter oen in spain... and later a legend grew around it. Its not relaly a diliberate Hoax...

Any more than pepel who beleive Martain Luhter nailed the 95 Treitis on a Chruhc door. ( He didnt actually do that...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 15, 2004.

Anthony,

At the back of my mind, there were stories about Franciscan created the image and brought it to Mexico to converts the Indians there

The Franciscans didn't have any tilma to work with until they came to Mexico so they couldn't have brought it.

Could it be possible that the Franciscan does have good intention of creating a beautiful image of our Lady

Creating beautiful images is possible with artistic talent. It's not probable a Franciscan made the image on the tilma at Guadalupe. So, it's not worth considering.

Next question, why would our Holy Church despite all evidence pointing towards possibility of legend

It's not a legend. No evidence points to that possibility. The tilma is in perfect condition despite the fact that it would have deteriorated more than three centuries if it was natural. Science is at a loss to explain this. I hope it's just poor word choice or bad reasoning that led you to say "all evidence.." and you're not being misleading and disingenuous on purpose.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

Of course, atheists don't believe that life continues after biological death...

Which is why it's best to be agnostic. As an agnostic I can be open to the possibility of the supernatural. But I cannot go beyond that and construct a detailed scenario as to what the supernatural -- if it does exist -- is like. In other words, it seems to me that God, Satan, angels, heaven, hell, Sacred Sciptures, miracles, etc. are most likely the product of man's imagination.

...and when they finally come face to face with reality, it will be too late for them.

And if you are wrong and the atheists are right, you'll never know it, will you. :)

But let's say that you are right. What is so commendable about blind faith? I can understand if atheism leads to immorality. But what about the atheist who is more virtuous than the believer?

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

I am not declaring it a HOAX. Just wondering. The thing is when you look at the Statue in Spain and the tilma, we could not just turn a blind eye to the striking similarity. In a later test, the tilma was found to be of a native pulp material of mexico, that would actually last longer than the cactus fibre. Actually I do think that the image is beautiful and would hope that its a miraculous imprint left by BVM. That doesn't mean that my belief in Catholic faith and love for Beloved Mary is any less if its a hoax. I am just wondering why would the faithful of the catholic church fabricate story to convert the indians? Isn't that a sin.

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), August 16, 2004.

DC,

But what about the atheist who is more virtuous than the believer?

Atheism isn't about virtue. Virtue is not accidental. Therefore, the most virtuous atheist will never hold a candle to the most virtuous believer. The only way to make that comparison is between false atheist and a false believer. As an atheist, the most virtuous one can be is by holding to some form of altruism derived from animal behavior which has no predication except for "impetus". Rational atheism(a perfect contradiction) simply can't be virtuous.

Anthony,

I am just wondering why would the faithful of the catholic church fabricate story to convert the indians?

I hope yet again that you're making poor word choice rather than using a pun on words to smear the Church.

Peace,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

Vincent,

I am probably using poor choice of word. I humbly admit my poor command in the English language. I am not trying to smear the Catholic church as I am still a catholic. As a believer, we could err.

There could be few posibility as with regards to the miraculous tilma. 1. Its miraculous. 2. A legend grew out of the effort of original intention of the Franciscan - Make a portrait and tell the indians about the wonderful heavenly Mother who is greater than their deities. 3. Someone fabricate the whole story about the miraculous tilma to convert the indians.

I think the posibility #2 is more likely. Franciscan created a image of Mary to teach the indians about Salvation and Christianity. A picture paints a thousand wordds. Then a legend grew out of it. Then somehow the Church because of no record tends to also affirm the legend. Although from a logical observation, the tilma does look like a product of human origin. The striking similarity between the Tilma and the statue of Guadalupe in Spain. Those scientific test - infrared, blowout of the virgin's eye, ultra-violet test are not exactly conclusive. In fact the infrared shows a lot of touch up on the original image.

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), August 16, 2004.

Hello Anthony,

picture gallery

Conspiracy theory put to rest.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

“why would our Holy Church despite all evidence pointing towards possibility of legend (a. Even bishop Zummaraga did not even account about such important matter in his log book, b. the similar looking image with Guadalupe of Spain, c. even the Abbot from the Mexico taking charge of the image dismiss the image as a hoax and Juan as non existance), endorse the image as miraculous.” (Anthony)

The Church is always most reluctant to declare that claimed miraculous events are in fact miracles. Contrary to the claims of many atheists/agnostics that the Church is based on blind faith and eager credulity. In fact many of these same atheists/agnostics are themselves blind and eager "believers" in nonsense like alien visitation, conspiracy theories, “alternative” medicine, astrology, "new age" and "neo-Wiccan" practices etc.

“I hate to think that Guadalupe is a hoax -- I guess for sentimental reasons -- but the nice thing about being a disillusioned Catholic and budding agnostic is that I no longer feel defensive when somebody criticizes a Church-approved miracle or dogma. I can look at it objectively and dispassionately.”

The Church doesn’t “approve” miracles. She declares in a few rare cases (such as Guadelupe) that a miraculous event has occurred. (A strong evidence for such miracles is the fruit they produce – in this case the largest mass conversion in history, from a religion of human sacrifice to the religion of Christ’s love.) They are NOT declared to be dogmas of the Catholic faith. Any Catholic is free to disbelieve any of these miracles and remain a Catholic in good standing. Maybe if you knew more about what the Church actually teaches, you wouldn’t feel defensive. If you know the facts of the Catholic faith you won’t feel threatened by ignorant criticism of it. Sorry DC, but what you have said seems to me neither objective nor dispassionate.

And why shouldn't the image of the BVM on the tilma be similar to other images in Spain? If it WASN'T similar, no-one would know who it was, which would defeat the whole reason for the miracle!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Vincent, the link you provided could be broken. Could not get to the site you gave.

Thanks. - Anthony

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), August 16, 2004.

Oops! Sorry about that. Here's the love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

Golly!

link

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

Vincent,

Don't quite get your note "conspiracy theory put to rest" by looking at the images.

Actually when I said the striking resemblance of Mary of Guadalupe in Spain and Mary of Guadalupe in Mexico, I was talking about: i) Angel at the bottom of Mary holding her dress; ii) The rays of lights - aura around her image; iii) Her mantle with studded with stars.

If you have seen the statues of Guadalupe of Spain, you would understand what I mean. The Shrine is under that care of the Franciscan. Its the Franciscan that were given the task to convert the natives of the Mexico.

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), August 16, 2004.

The original tilma didn't have the little angel and golden aura, they were added later by an artist. The original image was just of the Lady in her Aztec princess dress and blue shawl with stars which happened to match those in the sky.

Secondly, the whole miracle was of Juan Diego, not the Franciscans origin...the friars didn't set him up as a legend. He was real and it happened to him and he had neighbors and friends - all natives who converted. That's how the devotion spread, word of mouth among the natives that the Queen of Heaven had visited them.

But people are always searching for a this-worldly explanation for faith and conversion....Atheists conjure up black legends about why priests are "really" celibate or what monks really do in their remote locals... anything to explain away that Heaven can at times interviene in our affairs and men can really give up their lives in this world for the sake of the life to come.

People don't change. If you think a priest could foist a fake on a whole nation, getting millions to convert from a pagan past, then surely there would be examples of this happening all over without dark conspiracies afoot.

The web is full of accounts of the miracle of Guadalupe and I hope you'll check them out besides this site of arm-chair theologians and apologists.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

Anthony, I am familiar with the statue of Guadalupe , Spain. I saw pictures of it when in the 1980s I portrayed Juan Diego at the Catholic parishes I used to attend.

But the one in Mexico, even though is modeled on the one in Spain, it also is modeled after the one in Rvelation (Apocalypse): Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (Blue Bible)

I wonder what happened to the second verse.

Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered

The Mexican was done by the Indian marcos Ipaq de Aquino, sp says Fray Bernardino de Sahagún around the 1550s in his history.

This painting was place on the altar of an Indian Godess, Tonantzin. When the Nahuatl people saw the painting, they realized she was more powerful than their Gods the Sun (Tonatiuh, Huitzilopochtli), the Moon (Tezcatlipoca),...Quetzalcoatl (the angel),the stars, ...

This legend as it appears now was composed around the 1660s.

The Pope recognized Juan Diego as a true saint in July 2002. So for the Catholic Church then the story is true.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

Elpidio,

I see no reason why a person like you who claims to remember 123 names in consecutive order from a dream cannot take the time to learn a bit of science. Consider a course in quantitative and qualitative analysis as an investment.

IR spectroscopy reveals tilma image was not produced by any natural paint, or paint strokes. How could that be? It simply baffles the mind. If you're going to talk about the image's authenticity, do so based on unrefuted scientific principles.

And please, spend less time concocting dreams and more time praying for your sake and ours.

thanks..

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

Un libro registra los orígenes de las imágenes de la Virgen de Guadalupe

BUENOS AIRES, lunes, 16 agosto 2004 (ZENIT.org).- Un libro recién publicado en Argentina con el título «Imágenes de la Virgen de Guadalupe» recupera el origen histórico de esta advocación de la Madre de Dios.

Con el subtítulo «Expresiones culturales de fe, arte e historia», su autor, Raúl Horacio Viñas, transporta al lector en esta obra de poco más de cien páginas, tamaño bolsillo, a Extremadura (España).

«Se atribuye a San Lucas --escribe hablando de la fisonomía de la Madre de Dios-- una de las primeras pinturas que intentara "retratarla". Y otra tradición, no confirmada y más bien desmentida, le atribuía al mismo evangelista haber tallado en madera otra imagen que al morir él, habría sido enterrada con él en Acaya. Posteriormente ambos (el artista y la obra) fueron trasladados a Constantinopla en el siglo IV».

La historia se prolonga sobre diversos escenarios (ya Constantinopla, ya Roma, ya Sevilla), y luego añade: «Cuando, entre los años 713 o 714, muchos religiosos y fieles sevillanos huían a otras regiones ante los peligros de la invasión morisca comandada por Tarif o Tarik con las huestes del Emperador Ulit, y de Muza, triunfantes en la batalla de Guadalete, llevaban consigo objetos personales y religiosos para preservarlos de saqueos y profanaciones. Entonces peregrina la famosa talla, hasta llegar a tierras de la comunidad de Extremadura, de la provincia de Cáceres, en las estribaciones de la cordillera Oretana o Montes de Toledo, donde se yergue la denominada Sierra de Guadalupe [...]. La piadosa comitiva que portaba la talla decide enterrarla en la cuenca del río mentado [Guadalupejo], junto a la sierra y hacia la falda Sur de los Montes de Altamira».

El relato involucra después a un vaquero llamado Gil Cordero, «que poseía ganados en Cáceres», quien descubre el lugar donde estaba enterrada la imagen porque dice haber oído la voz de la Santísima Virgen que le hablaba y le daba indicaciones para que cavaran en un determinado lugar y hallarán (como efectivamente ocurre) la famosa representación, «una virgen bizantina o románica, sedente, con el Niño en sus rodillas, mirando de frente (Nikopoya o victoriosa en la iconografia bizantina), tallada en madera de cedro policromada».

Es apenas de 23 centímetros de alto, pesa 205 gramos y se conserva en el Real Monasterio de Guadalupe (Cáceres), construido en el siglo XIV.

El capítulo segundo está dedicado a la expansión de la devoción guadalupana (siglos XV al XXI) en Europa y especialmente en España, luego en América y en Oceanía. A continuación (capítulo III), sigue la aparición y culto en Tepeyac (México), acertada y brevemente descripta, episodio muy conocido por otra parte, pero siempre grato de hallar por la dulzura que destila el diálogo de la Virgen con Juan Diego, privilegiado vidente.

Este capítulo empalma con un «apéndice», sobre «La ciencia ante el misterio de los ojos de Guadalupe», que refiere los modernos hallazgos hechos por la ciencia en los ojos de la bella imagen grabada milagrosamente en la tilma de Juan Diego.

El autor, argentino, dedica dos capítulos a «La Virgen de Guadalupe en Santa Fe, Argentina (s. XVIII-XXI)» y «La Virgen de Guadalupe en la ciudad de Buenos Aires».

Más información en ventas@editorialguadalupe.com.ar o en la página webhttp://www.editorialguadalupe.com.ar ZS04081609

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

And please, spend less time concocting dreams and more time praying for your sake and ours.

Sage wisdom there Vincent!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 17, 2004.

I never concacted dreams, Vincent.

They are not the product of a fertile imagination. I never wished anyone to die. Instead, I wanted them to get closer to God Yahweh.

By making fun of me, you will get your wish granted. The Pope before Bush.And....you will see it.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

Elpidio,

By making fun of me, you will get your wish granted. The Pope before Bush. And....you will see it.

Whoa there! Elpidio, seer, prophet, now mind-reader extraodinaire.

If only you were guilty of being just one of the above, I would hesistate to call you out on sophism: that you don't wish anyone to die, but you hope it will happen for me to "see".

Oh wait, no. Your sig/title should reflect your immutable knowledge of the future. Maybe, you should have seen that coming?

Peace!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 18, 2004.

Hello Anthony,

The Truth is sometimes so hard, but I prefer a pain truth than little lies, fairy tales, or sentimentalism. What about you?. I will consider some facts about this theme under good basis:

1. First hand information of eyewitnesses. 2. The ancient files and tales of Aztecs. 3. The Bible

As a real Mexican, I born within a family with strong ties and ancient traditions but since I was boy I wanted to discover the truth about religions. When I begin to study in the University, history, ancient Spanish and the Bible mainly, I think I can answer and explain in a neutral point of view your questions.

The pure Aztecs and another several tribes had own religions and many traditions but they lived right. The Spaniards arrived to Mexico with a big gold hungry and they took all gold from the Indians, they killed many people with the pretext to make "christians". The conquers were the first "chistianizers" and they destroyed all temples and buildings and got slaves to build the "New Spain". Then many religion variations arrived to this land to converts "savages" to "chistians" as Franciscanos, Dominicos, Agustinos, Oblatos, Jesuitas, Salesianos, Curas and more. They kept the slavery and bad treat to indians and built many churches in all Mexico free of charge. For the Indians was very difficult to understand why these men wanted they get baptized them and raped the women afterwards. Even little children had to work hard to pleased them. Those men brought the racism from Spain.The "christians" were gamblers, rapers, murderers and more.

Juan de Zumarraga was very proud because he destroyed more than 500 temples and 20000 idols. He was good killer of many important Indian Leaders because they rejected to be christians, and who wanted to be chistian with that crazy treat?. This man establish the "holly inquisition" and he got the permission to terminate all important master people in order to get lands and richness. Many Leaders of religion (Catholic) were governors during many years and the church had all power ruling the people.

The Indians understood that they can faked be christians constructing the "christian" altars on the Indian altars, logically the religous leaders found those and killed the "heretics".

Now we can start...

Many years before the Spaniards arrive to Mexico the Indians workship the mother godness Tonanzin on the Tepeyac mountain and before Hernan Cortes born there was a virgin named Guadalupe in Spain, brown, curiously. Then the "holly chemistry" mixed the two mothers in one: the brown virgin of Guadalupe placed on the Tepeyac. The parties for Tonanzin were celebrated during december (month: tititl) and curiously the aztec Tonanzin means "Our Mother" and this name was given to the new brand virgin and the special party was established, when? In december. After that, a religious political confrontations appeared between different confesions. They began a competition about temple buildings and land properties. The franciscanos were in oposition to the Guadalupe virgin creators and they created the virgin of Zapopan. Then the "holly" inquisition (by Zumarraga) began to invent false judgement against the franciscanos because they accused about false wraith of Guadalupe. (Writings from: Jacinto de la Serna, 1655; Martin de León, 1611)

Hence, the image of Guadalupe is a heritage of the cruel spaniard conquerors.

Not few mexican said this: it is the biggest business of Mexico.

What about the indian Juan Diego?. The Catholic Abbot of Mexico said all.

Many virgins,idols, masters, gods have been invented in all country. Almost all towns and cities have a masters but the most famous are the virgins.

What about the image appearance?. Looks like real image of a human or a paint of XV century?. The hands, face, eyes, proportion of body?. Look very carefully. The child below her?, an angel?, the Bible tell us about angels but they are as a mature men. The children angels came from the pagan religion of the Roman Empire. The moon detail?. As the XV century thinking of the people. What do you think?

The Bible said that the virgin Maria has been the material mother for the God's son birth. A human can not be the mother of Godand then she is not the mother of God. Jesus is not the Powerful God, Jesus is the Son of the One God. (John 3:16) (Luke 1:27). Jesus invited to learn about the True one God (John 17:3). He explain about his heavenly Father all the time, and about his mother? Never. Maria was a good sample of behaviour for the modern women.

The woman mentioned in Revelation 12:1, 2 and the details are entirely symbols as all book.

Many centuries of mexican identity can not be unveiled because many people will get a big dissapointment.

Watch every country in the world, after many centuries the religion leaders mixed native traditions with "christianism".

Against the blind faith the Bible invites to place our faith on real and true facts (Romans 1:20)

Many people in the world denied the religion because the very bad fruits gaven.

Learning the Truth of the Bible we can be free of false things. (John 8:32)

Is it a Hoax?. I know the answer.

I hope this add some knowledge to yours.

Regards.

/Manuel P.S. I can provide you all information every detail I wrote.

-- Manuel R. Gallo (Manuel_Gallo@hotmail.com), September 28, 2004.

Yeah thanks Manuel for that "neutral point of view". "The religious order priests raped every woman in Mexico", etc etc. Your blind puerile fundamentalist anti-Cathilic bigotry adds nothing to the conversation.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 28, 2004.

Manuel,

This is a Christian website. I would certainly not expect that you, a non-Christian who fails to recognize the divinity of Christ, could possibly accept or understand the depth of truth that is presented here. But there is no reason to attack that which you are incapable of understanding.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 28, 2004.

Manuel seems to be another Mexican like me to finally reach a similar conclusion not only on Guadalupe but on Jesus too.

Is Manuel a Christian, Paul M.? Yes. The guy quotes scripture. Atheists don't.

He gave some information I wasn't aware of. Thus, I canot 100% say he is correct. But 75 % if I have read before.

The strange part Paul M, is that most of this information comes from Catholic sources like Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, The Mexican Inquisition, and the former abbot Guillermo Schulemburg.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.

Neither Manuel nor Elpidio know what they're talking about. Not one thing.

The image of Our Lady is a MIRACULOUS image; despite being PAINTED. It wasn't painted on earth. You don't have to believe it if you don't wish to. But almost every faithful Catholic believes it; and it's true. There are various logical reasons. Nothing you two post here or think about the image is relevant in any way; because you disqualify yourselves beforehand. You are biased against the Church once founded by Jesus Christ the Son of God. The Church which you fell away from, one into heresy, the other into unbelief. What possible authority could you draw on?

As a biblical scholar, Elpidio is utterly deficient. Elpidio has become ''as the heathen and the publican.'' And atheists by definition are unqualified to judge any religious matter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 28, 2004.

You cannot prov that Eugene 100%.

1)You were not there when it was painted. Fray Bernardino de Sahagun even gives the name of the painter:Marcos.Sahagun was a Catholic monk. Marcos was an Aztec Indian. This was before the 1550s.

2)You canot prove it came from Heaven.

3) Faith and truth are two different things. You believe because you trust those who came before you said it was true. Once you find it wasn't so, then it is no longer true.

Just because skinheads and other white supremmacists make Hitler a Hero, makes Hitler a Hero.

We know what he did.

We also know who painted the image.No, I did not write about it. These were catholics.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.

Elpidio,

Atheists may not quote Scripture, but a lot of non-Christians do. So does Satan when it is convenient. Bottom line - one who denies that Jesus Christ is God is not Christian.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 28, 2004.

Have you talked to Satan, Paul?

Have you talked to Jesus?

Have you talked to death?

.....

We make assuptions based on what others have said. It is like Supreme court decisions. There was such thing before as separate but equal.

One group of people were denied their rights based on the color of their skin. They had to go to separate restrooms, separate schools,...

That was true until the 1960s. Now we have integrated schools, everyone is allowed to buy where they choose,....Yet people are still colored and considered White.

So is the Kingdom of Yahweh, Paul.

Maybe the colored are denied their right as children of God Yahweh now, but when people face him one day,.

Do you think he is going to say: blessed are you Catholics, to you belongs the Kingdom that I have prepared....and I will cast out all Atheists, Jews (like Abraham), Muslims, Budhists, Bahais, Protestants, ....and Christian Yahwists into the outer darkness....

Or will he say, I was hungry, and you did not feed me, I was thirsty, and you did not give me water to drink,.....come to me all Catholics, Christian Yahwists,Budhists, Bahais, Muslims, Jews,...Atheists, who have showm mercy, love, and care for those of my people in need, because I was hungry and you gave me food to eat, water to drink,...even if you did not know me.

Because I tell you. it is not those who say I believe in you, oh God of the Universe,, but those who do who my will ,who I will gather in my bosom!!!

Come to the party I have set ready for you!!!

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.

Have you talked to the Most Blessed Virgin of Guadalupe, Elpidio?
We know who did. It was San Juan Diego. He saw and heard the mother of Jesus and took messages at her command to the bishop. This is historically certain.

He asked her who she was, and what she wanted. The apparition of Our Lord's holy mother answered in no uncertain terms. ''I am the most Blessed Virgin Mary.'' No one makes these things up. Least of all the clergy, since it would be an affront to do that, falsely. --An insult to the Holy Mother of God.

Juan Diego reported everything to the bishop, who was very skeptical. But he brought the bishop her image later on as evidence of the supernatural apparition. That image was not painted in this world.

If a living painter would somehow have painted it there, we'd have evidence. There was none. No artist would have even dreamt of working on a Mexican tilma; get real. It would really have been absurd. (They knew about canvas, Elpidio.) That, and then giving his painting to a humble Indito, as if it were just a toss-off, not worth keeping? Are you kidding?

The original face of the Virgin's apparition was even MORE incredibly drawn upon the rough shawl; so much that no one who saw it could have doubts it was a holy work. Today, we don't even see how her face actually appeared. Heavenly is the word for it. But some fool attempted to ''clean'' the face on the tilma. It had to be painted in heaven by a saint or an angel on commision from God Himself.

The little Indian messenger didn't even know it was imprinted on his blanket. He thought he was only taking a bunch of roses (also a miracle) in it. You wonder if an artist painted that unearthly image on his cloth while Juan Diego was asleep? Hell-o?

You can play scientist and detective; but you'll never convince anybody there was no visit from Our Blessed Mother to this people. You haven't got evidence otherwise, and you're up against truth.

It's ironic indeed that YOU want others to PROVE anything. The burden of proof is YOURS. You're who's taking stabs in the dark. We have various miracles and prophesies fulfilled by her, Mary; to uphold our faith. You have plenty of false pride and ill-will, but what else besides that? Nobody has any reason to give you proof.

You live an animal existence. I do not mean that as an insult. I say it because you rely only on your human sense. Nothing is true to you that you can't put in a jar. Something to eat. You can't see past this world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 28, 2004.

Hi Eugene.

I'll probably take some heat for posting what I'm about to say, but I only ask because it needs to be answered.

It would be expected that the image should exhibit perfection (I don't know). I won't go into all of the analysis done with the "painting", but I will mention this. The painting is flawed.

Has anyone here noticed that the hair-part is not perfectly aligned with the face in the "painting"? We can argue that the hairline is off center, but it does look rather peculiar not having the hariline part in proportion to the face.

Is that a consideration for the "painting" being flawed?

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.

Atheists may not quote Scripture, but a lot of non-Christians do. So does Satan when it is convenient. -- Paul M.

Have you talked to Satan, Paul? -- Elpidio

And he brought him to Jerusalem and set him on a pinnacle of the temple and said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself from hence. For it is written that He hath given his angels charge over thee that they keep thee. And that in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.

12 And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 28, 2004.

Thanks, Brian; for a good clarification.

No, Rod; there is no flaw. That supposed misalignment of the hair- parting isn't supportable. In fact, the fault lies in the way way we see this-- in two dimensions. Look at the face with respect to its THREE-dimensional aspect, It will be clear we're looking at a sloping forehead; with the proper perspective view of her brow. It couldn't be painted more perfectly.

What I have previously asserted is how this image of Mary captures not just her features, but her profound innocence and holiness. I do not exaggerate. In the underlying true portrait (now covered by re-touches) there is something so sublime we have to call it unique in all art. There's nothing else matches her face for that. Try to research the image. There still exist photos of the facial image taken BEFORE it was '' cleaned and touched up''. The difference will amaze you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 28, 2004.

I've heard plenty of atheists quote scripture for their own ends.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 28, 2004.

The image.< p> ........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.

Second try:

The image.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.

Can anyone help me to remove this thread. The last thing I want to do is to cause controversy and frustration. Mary is a beautiful and humble servant of God. She is the most kind and wonderful heavenly mother. I know my life have been blessed because of her motherly intercession and countless time she has helped me in times of difficulties. In times of happiness, I know she is there ever present to rejoice with me in God's providence and love. These are my personal experiences.

The last thing I wish to do is to dis-honor her by posting this thread. Whether the Guadalupe is a HOAX or not, it does not matter now. I don't wish to see anyone attacking her name because of me.

Anyone - please help me to remove this entire thread.

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), September 29, 2004.

Few words of my research...and notes from catholic sources. I know that Maria is a good sample for all women.

Thanks a lot for stick it in your forum.

Many people throughout the earth regard humans—alive or dead— with “extravagant respect, honor, or devotion.” While they may feel that this is part of their worship to God, it actually diverts them from true worship. This opens the way for them to believe doctrines and engage in practices that are contrary to God’s will. One outstanding example is the way in which Mary, the mother of Jesus, is viewed by millions of people in both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Catholic lands.

Images and icons of Mary are bowed down to in a worshipful attitude, and in official church doctrine, she is referred to as “the Virgin Mary Theotokos.” The word the·o·to´kos means “God-bearer” or “mother of God.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Mary is the mother of God. . . . If Mary is not truly the mother of God, then Christ is not true God as well as true man.” Thus, as part of their Trinity doctrine, these religions teach that Jesus was Almighty God in human form, making Mary the “mother of God.” The same source adds that devotion to Mary includes: “(1) veneration, or the reverent recognition of the dignity of the holy Virgin Mother of God; (2) invocation, or the calling upon our Lady for her motherly and queenly intercession; . . . and private prayers [to Mary].”

However, the word the·o·to´kos does not appear in the inspired Scriptures. And nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was the “mother of God.” Jesus did not teach it, nor did first-century Christians. Furthermore, the Bible plainly shows that Jesus was not God Almighty in human form but was God’s Son. Indeed, when Mary was notified by an angel that she would bear a son, she was told: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” (Luke 1:35) So Jesus was God’s Son, not God himself in human form. Hence, Mary was the mother of God’s son Jesus, not the mother of God in human form. That is why neither Jesus nor his disciples ever called Mary the “mother of God.”

The way Jesus viewed his mother indicates her relative position. At a marriage feast in Cana, the Bible account tells us: “When the wine ran short the mother of Jesus said to him: ‘They have no wine.’ But Jesus said to her. ‘What have I to do with you, woman?’” Here the Roman Catholic Douay Version of the Bible reads: “Woman, what is that to me and to thee?” (John 2:3, 4) On another occasion, someone said to him: “Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that you sucked!” That was a fine opportunity for Jesus to give special honor to his mother and to show that others should do the same. Instead, Jesus said: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”—Luke 11:27, 28.

Such references show that Jesus took care not to give devotion or undue honor to Mary or to address her by any special title. He did not allow their relationship to influence him. And the apostles and disciples followed his example, for nowhere in their inspired writings is Mary given any undue honor, title, or influence. While they respected her as the mother of Jesus, they did not go beyond that. Certainly they never referred to her as the “mother of God.” They knew that Jesus was not Almighty God in human form and, hence, that Mary could not possibly be God’s mother, a position far beyond what God’s Word allows for Mary.

Where, then, did this idea originate? It gradually crept into apostate Christendom in the third and fourth centuries of our Common Era. Especially was this the case after the year 325 C.E. when the Council of Nicaea adopted the unscriptural doctrine that Christ was God. Once that erroneous idea was accepted, it became easier to teach that Mary was the “mother of God.” Regarding this, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The title [‘mother of God’] seems to have arisen in devotional usage, probably in Alexandria, sometime in the 3rd or 4th century . . . By the end of the 4th century, the Theotokos had successfully established itself in various sections of the church.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the doctrine was accepted officially “since the Council of Ephesus in 431.”. Of interest is where that council met and why. The book The Cult of the Mother-Goddess, by E. O. James, states: “The Council of Ephesus assembled in the basilica of the Theotokos in 431. There, if anywhere, in the city so notorious for its devotion to Artemis, or Diana as the Romans called her, where her image was said to have fallen from heaven, under the shadow of the great temple dedicated to the Magna Mater [Great Mother] since 330 B.C. and containing, according to tradition, a temporary residence of Mary, the title ‘God-bearer’ hardly could fail to be upheld.”

So just as with the Trinity, the “mother of God” doctrine is a pagan teaching masquerading as a Christian belief. It was prominent in pagan religions centuries before Christ. The New Encyclopædia Britannica states under the heading “mother goddess”: “Any of a variety of feminine deities and maternal symbols of creativity, birth, fertility, sexual union, nurturing, and the cycle of growth. The term also has been applied to figures as diverse as the so-called Stone Age Venuses and the Virgin Mary. . . . There is no culture that has not employed some maternal symbolism in depicting its deities. . . . She is the protector and nourisher of a divine child and, by extension, of all mankind.” Thus, Catholic priest Andrew Greely says in his book The Making of the Popes 1978: “The Mary symbol links Christianity directly to the ancient [pagan] religions of mother goddesses.”

To claim that Mary was the “mother of God” elevates her to a position where humans would tend to worship her, and that is what has happened for centuries. Hundreds of millions of people in many lands have prayed to her or through her and have given worshipful devotion to images and icons of her. While theologians may try to excuse this by saying that such veneration of Mary is only an indirect way of worshiping God, that is not the way God views it. “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1, 2) Jesus himself said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”—John 14:6.

Giving Mary devotion directly or indirectly, praying to her, bowing down to images and icons of her, is worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. It is idolatrous, and Christians are instructed to “flee from idolatry.” (1 Corinthians 10:14) When the Gentile Cornelius bowed reverently to the apostle Peter, note what happened: “As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him. But Peter lifted him up, saying: ‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’” (Acts 10:25, 26) Bowing worshipfully to a human was improper, and Peter would not accept it. Also, after receiving a vision from an angel, the apostle John reports: “I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been showing me these things. But he tells me: ‘Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God.’” (Revelation 22:8, 9) If not even an angel of God is to be worshiped, how much less humans or images of them.

That such devotion to Mary may result in improper worship is acknowledged by The Catholic Encyclopedia. An early edition of this work stated: “That popular devotion to the Blessed Virgin was often attended with extravagance and abuses, it is impossible to deny.”

From what source would such an unscriptural doctrine come? The underlying source has to be God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil. (John 8:44) Why would he promote such a teaching? To belittle and downgrade the Sovereign Lord Yaveh (orJehovah), to elevate humans, and to cause confusion. It diverts people from true worship and causes them to look instead to creatures for salvation. For centuries it also enhanced the power of the clergy over the common people, who were taught that they must be totally subservient to their religious leaders because the clergy alone had knowledge of such complicated theology.

-- Manuel R. Gallo (Manuel_Gallo@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.

"While they may feel that this is part of their worship to God, it actually diverts them from true worship".

A: How would you know, never having experienced it? Instead of guessing about something you are totally unfamiliar with, you might do better to take an honest look at those who do give proper honor to Mary, and see if they are drawn closer to God or farther from Him. Note that those who give proper respect and honor to Mary seldom leave the Church Christ founded, in favor of modern manmade religions. That alone indicates the value of honoring Mary.

"This opens the way for them to believe doctrines and engage in practices that are contrary to God’s will".

A: The division of Christianity into thousands of conflicting denominations is the most flagrant violation of God's will that has ever occurred. And it occurs among those who do NOT honor His mother.

"Images and icons of Mary are bowed down to in a worshipful attitude"

A: No, they are not! In Catholicism, idolatry of every kind is specifically and strictly forbidden. Catholics worship no-one but the One True God Who founded our Church as the channel of salvation for all mankind.

"and in official church doctrine, she is referred to as “the Virgin Mary Theotokos.” The word the·o·to´kos means “God-bearer” or “mother of God"

A: That's a no-brainer. Her Son is God. She is the mother of her Son. That makes her the mother of God. What could be clearer?

"Thus, as part of their Trinity doctrine, these religions teach that Jesus was Almighty God in human form, making Mary the “mother of God."

A: If your religion does not recognize the Trinity, a foundational belief of Christianity, then you are not Christian, and are not in a valid position to comment on the beliefs of Christianity from outside.

"The same source adds that devotion to Mary includes: “(1) veneration, or the reverent recognition of the dignity of the holy Virgin Mother of God"

A: Note - "veneration"; "reverence"; "recognition"; no mention of worship, for obvious reasons.

"invocation, or the calling upon our Lady for her motherly and queenly intercession; . . . and private prayers [to Mary]."

A: Christians make private invocation (= request) to other earthly sinners (= their family and friends) for intercession (= prayer) all the time. So why wouldn't we also ask Mary for prayers of intercession??

"However, the word theotokos does not appear in the inspired Scriptures. And nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was the“mother of God."

A: The Bible clearly says that (1) Mary is the mother of Jesus; and (2) that Jesus is God. Can you add 1+1? If I am a biologist, is there some possible way that MY mother could NOT be the mother of a biologist??

"the Bible plainly shows that Jesus was not God Almighty in human form but was Gods Son."

A: What Bible are you reading? In the true Bible, God the Father Himself is quoted as follows: "unto the Son he saith, THY throne, O GOD, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of THY kingdom."

"Indeed, when Mary was notified by an angel that she would bear a son, she was told: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son."

A: There it is, plain as day. The parents of Jesus are God and Mary. The offspring of two parents have the nature of the parents. Since the parents of Jesus were divine and human, Jesus is necessarily divine and human.

"That is why neither Jesus nor his disciples ever called Mary the “mother of God."

A: When I call my mother "mom", I am calling her MY mother. Therefore when Jesus addressed Mary as "mother", He was calling her the mother of God.

"The way Jesus viewed his mother indicates her relative position. At a marriage feast in Cana, the Bible account tells us: “When the wine ran short the mother of Jesus said to him: ‘They have no wine.’ But Jesus said to her. ‘What have I to do with you, woman?"

A: You conveniently failed to finish the verse. It reads "What have I to do with you, woman? My time has not yet come". The meaning then is apparent. It means "What can I do about this request of yours, since the time God has ordained for my first miracle is not yet here". What indicates Mary's "relative position" is the fact that Mary, in a gesture of perfect faith, turns to the waiters and tells them "do whatever He tells you", knowing that He will respond to her request. And Jesus, in direct response to her intercession, performs His first miracle, in spite of the fact that the time ordained from all eternity for that event has not yet come! Talk about power of intercession!

"On another occasion, someone said to him: “Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that you sucked!” That was a fine opportunity for Jesus to give special honor to his mother and to show that others should do the same. Instead, Jesus said: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!"

A: What they said to him was absolutely correct! The Bible tells us Mary was the most blessed of all women. However, Jesus uses this teachable moment to reveal a greater truth. It was already revealed by the Holy Spirit that all generations of His followers would call Mary blessed.(Luke 1:48) (Do you?) Nothing more needed to be revealed on that point. But the message of salvation did need to be revealed to these people. Which is exactly how Mary would want it.

"Such references show that Jesus took care not to give devotion or undue honor to Mary or to address her by any special title."

A: "Blessed among women" sounds pretty special to me". So does "full of grace". So does "mother of My Lord". In the few short passages where Mary is mentioned, she is repeatedly addressed and described in terms that could not possibly be applied to any other human being. Naturally the Apostles addressed her by her name. They didn't address Jesus by any special title either. They addressed Him as "Jesus".

"He did not allow their relationship to influence him".

A: If it were not for her request, and their relationship, the couple at Cana would simply have had to go without wine, and suffer the resulting social disgrace. Altering God's eternal plan at her request sounds like pretty significant influence to me.

"And the apostles and disciples followed his example, for nowhere in their inspired writings is Mary given any undue honor, title, or influence. While they respected her as the mother of Jesus, they did not go beyond that."

A: Neither do we.

"Certainly they never referred to her as the “mother of God.”They knew that Jesus was not Almighty God in human form and, hence, that Mary could not possibly be God's mother, a position far beyond what God's Word allows for Mary."

A: Well, as long as that anti-Christian doctrine is your premise, you will necessarily reach that false conclusion. The Apostles spent three years seeing Jesus every day doing things that no mere man could do. Doing things that ONLY GOD could do. Raising the dead. Curing lepers. Calming the sea. Walking upon the sea. Multiplying food. Forgiving men's sins! (and the onlookers said ..."Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7) And guess what! They were RIGHT! And Jesus replied ... "that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins ..."(Mark 2:10) Here Jesus is plainly saying "that ye may know that the Son of man IS GOD ...", since GOD ALONE can forgive sins.

"Where, then, did this idea originate? It gradually crept into apostate Christendom in the third and fourth centuries of our Common Era. Especially was this the case after the year 325 C.E. when the Council of Nicaea adopted the unscriptural doctrine that Christ was God."

A: Nicaea did not "adopt" this central doctrine of Christianity. They officially DEFINED it in precise terms; and a Church Council never dogmatically defines any doctrine unless it can be demonstrated to date from Apostolic times. Incidentally, where did this "apostate Christendom" come from, and where did it go? History reveals no Christian church but the Holy Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles until the 11th century.

"The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The title ['mother of God’] seems to have arisen in devotional usage, probably in Alexandria, sometime in the 3rd or 4th century"

A: Really! Then explain this ...

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that SHE WOULD BEAR GOD" (Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', A.D. 189)

"... his advent by the spotless and GOD-BEARING MARY ..." (Hippolytus, 'Discourse on the End of the World', A.D. 217)

I could provide several others but those two make the point.

"The book The Cult of the Mother-Goddess, by E. O. James, states:"

A: I won't bother commenting on this. The identity of the quoted source is sufficient to render the quote both absurd and sacrilegious. If you're reading trash like this it's no wonder you are confused. You might as well quote Hitler as an authority on Judaism.

"So just as with the Trinity, the “mother of God” doctrine is a pagan teaching masquerading as a Christian belief. It was prominent in pagan religions centuries before Christ."

A: Since there were hundreds of pagan sects, each with their own assortment of "gods" and "goddesses" designed in the image and likeness of men, having sexual relations and producing offspring, it was rather unavoidable that the idea "mother of a god" and "father of a god" were prominent themes of paganism. So what? Should the true God's plan of salvation be altered by the myths of men? According to your line of reasoning, we shouldn't believe in a god at all, since belief in a god "was prominent in pagan religions centuries before Christ".

"To claim that Mary was the “mother of God” elevates her to a position where humans would tend to worship her"

A: It hasn't happened in 2,000 years so I really wouldn't worry too much. Especially since Mary's divine Son promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to "all truth".

"Hundreds of millions of people in many lands have prayed to her or through her"

A: Yes! And what blessings have flowed as a result!

"and have given worshipful devotion to images and icons of her"

A: No! Idolatry is absolutely forbidden!

“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1, 2) Jesus himself said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”—John 14:6.

A: This is certainly true, as is everything the Catholic Church put into the Bible. But it is also completely irrelevant to the present discussion. No-one is claiming that Mary died on the cross or that Mary is the Savior. That was the work of mediation, and Jesus was the only Mediator. Mary is simply an intercessor, as are all Christians.

"Giving Mary devotion directly or indirectly, praying to her, bowing down to images and icons of her, is worshiping the creation rather than the Creator."

A: Only if you are ignorant of the profound distinction between "devotion" and "worship"! Not only am I devoted to Mary, but you may be shocked to hear that I am also devoted to my own parents! And to my wife and children! But I sure don't worship them! Or Mary!

“As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him. But Peter lifted him up, saying: ‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’” (Acts 10:25, 26) Bowing worshipfully to a human was improper, and Peter would not accept it".

A: If the man was worshipping Peter, then Peter certainly would have had to reject the gesture. Just as Mary would. However, there is nothing resembling worship in the passage you quoted. The man was showing honor and perhaps even awe when meeting Peter face to face, while Peter was a humble man who shunned such displays of respect. But the man was certainly not worshipping Peter, so the scene is irrelevant to the present discussion.

"Also, after receiving a vision from an angel, the apostle John reports: “I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been showing me these things. But he tells me: ‘Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God.’” (Revelation 22:8, 9) If not even an angel of God is to be worshiped, how much less humans or images of them."

A: Right! And there you have it! That is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject, stated just as succintly and absolutely in its Scriptures as in its Catechism ...

"Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature IN PLACE OF God ... Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2113). Read something authoritative, so you at least come across as having some idea what Catholics actually believe, instead of wasting a lot of energy attacking straw men.

"That such devotion to Mary may result in improper worship is acknowledged by The Catholic Encyclopedia. An early edition of this work stated: “That popular devotion to the Blessed Virgin was often attended with extravagance and abuses, it is impossible to deny.”

A: To say that something is "abused" is to identify the subject itself as good. If a man "abuses" his wife, that doesn't indicate that his wife is someone evil. If a judge "abuses" his office that doesn't make his office something evil. If some people "abuse" devotion to Mary, thereby rejecting the Church's official teaching on the subject, that doesn't reflect on the value of true devotion, but only on the acts of the abusers.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 29, 2004.

Paul, that is a beautiful sharing of Catholic faith. Thank you.

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), September 29, 2004.

Thanks, Paul. You've given me more insight on the Marriage in Cana. It didn't dawn on me that Jesus answered a request as a favor. This means that Jesus will perform miracles in our personal lives and that Mary would intercede for those miracles. (I call them miracles, but they can be answers to our struggles and sufferings.)

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.

Amen to that rod!

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 29, 2004.

Hello guys,

I appreciated your comments but I suggest you read and study and get texts from the Bible as Jesus did.

Maria always was respected, loved by Jesus but after his baptism, Jesus did not show special favoritism toward Maria; he addressed her, not as “mother,” but simply as “woman.” (John 2:4; 19:26) This was in no sense an expression of disrespect, as might be understood from modern- day English usage. In German, for example, the word used in this way denotes madam, Mrs., lady. Maria was Jesus’ mother according to the flesh; but since his spirit-begetting at the time of his baptism, he was primarily God’s spiritual Son. Jesus laid emphasis on this fact when Maria and her other children on one occasion interrupted Jesus during a teaching session by asking him to come outside where they were. Jesus let it be known that really his mother and close relatives were those of his spiritual family, that spiritual matters take precedence over fleshly interests.—Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21.

When the wine ran out at a wedding in Cana of Galilee and Maria said to Jesus, “They have no wine,” he responded: “What have I to do with you, woman? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:1-4) Jesus here used an ancient form of question that occurs eight times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Joshua 22:24; Judges 11:12; 2Samuel 16:10; 19:22; 1 Kings 17:18; 2Kings 3:13; 2 Chronicles 35:21; Hosea 14:8) and six times in the Greek Scriptures. (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28; John 2:4) Literally translated, the question is: “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What is there in common between me and you?” or, “What do I and you have in common?” or, “What have I to do with you?” In every instance where it is used, the question indicates an objection to the thing suggested, proposed, or suspected. Jesus, therefore, lovingly couched his gentle reproof in this form, indicating to his mother that his direction came not from her but from the Supreme Authority who had sent him. [1 Co 11:3, "But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God"... there is nothing else) Maria’s sensitive and humble nature was quick to catch the point and accept the correction. Stepping back and letting Jesus take the lead, she remarked to the attendants: “Whatever he tells you, do.”—John 2:5.

Maria was standing alongside when Jesus was inpaled. To her, Jesus was more than a beloved son, he was the Messiah, her Lord and Savior, the Son of God. Mary was apparently a widow by now. Consequently, Jesus, as the firstborn of Joseph’s household, discharged his responsibility by asking the apostle John, likely his cousin, to take Maria to his home and look after her as his own mother. (John 19:26, 27) Why did Jesus not entrust her to one of his own half brothers? It is not stated that any of them were present. Furthermore, they were not yet believers, and Jesus considered the spiritual relationship more important than the fleshly. —John 7:5; Matthew 12:46-50.

Maria was a faithful disciple of Jesus, the last biblical notice of Maria shows her to be a woman of faith and devotion still closely associated with other faithful ones after the ascension of Jesus. The 11 apostles, Maria, and others were assembled in an upper chamber, and “with one accord all these were persisting in prayer.” —Acts 1:13, 14.

My principles are:

2 Timothy 3:16, 17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work" (All Scripture is The Bible)

John 17:17 "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth" (when Jesus prayed to his Father before captured by roman soldiers).

Best Regards

/Manuel

-- Manuel R. Gallo (Manuel_Gallo@hotmail.com), September 30, 2004.

"Maria was Jesus’ mother according to the flesh; but since his spirit-begetting at the time of his baptism, he was primarily God's spiritual Son."

A: One cannot be "primarily" the son of one parent; nor does a mother give birth only to the "flesh" of a person. Christ was always and in every way fully God and fully man because he was always equally the son of Mary and the son of God. This was and is His nature. Nothing could change it.

"Jesus let it be known that really his mother and close relatives were those of his spiritual family, that spiritual matters take precedence over fleshly interests."

A: Well of course they do. Seek first the Kingdom of God. (Matt 6:33) That fact doesn't negate the special place that His own mother held in His heart and mind. That could be true of anyone on a natural level, but even more so in the case of Jesus, Who intended to give Mary to the Church as our spiritual mother.

"Jesus here used an ancient form of question that occurs eight times in the Hebrew Scriptures ... in every instance where it is used, the question indicates an objection to the thing suggested, proposed, or suspected."

A: Exactly! Jesus had a strong objection to granting Mary's request, not because he didn't care about her feelings and needs, but because what she was requesting was not ordained to happen at that particular time. Yet, she knew that His love for her would prevail, and acted accordingly; and Jesus responded by giving her need priority over the eternal timetable, and granting her request.

"Jesus, therefore, lovingly couched his gentle reproof in this form, indicating to his mother that his direction came not from her but from the Supreme Authority who had sent him ... Maria’s sensitive and humble nature was quick to catch the point and accept the correction."

A: In fact, Mary's perfect faith led her to simply ignore the "correction", and to act as though Jesus had never said it! That is how certain she was that her intercessory request would be granted. But that we too could pray with the same perfect faith, knowing with certainty that what we ask for will be granted! "... for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." (Matt 17:20) Mary is the perfect example of that kind of complete faith, which is why He has given her to us as a model and an intercessor.

"Why did Jesus not entrust her to one of his own half brothers? It is not stated that any of them were present. Furthermore, they were not yet believers, and Jesus considered the spiritual relationship more important than the fleshly"

A: That is sheer fantasy, unsupported by anything in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. The obvious reason why Jesus entrusted His mother to a non-relative is that there were no blood relatives available. According to Jewish cultural norms, care of the mother was the responsibility of the eldest son, and would have automatically fallen to the next oldest son upon the death of the eldest son. There was no choice in the matter. Jesus made this special arrangement for His mother's welfare precisely because there were no other sons.

"My principles are: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work" (All Scripture is The Bible)"

A: Yes scripture is "beneficial", just as it claims to be. A toaster is "beneficial" too, but it isn't the whole kitchen. Jesus didn't say these words to a group of men who, like yourself, had no other foundation in faith. He didn't just walk up to a group of uncatechised men, hand them a book, and say "read it and figure out the truth for yourselves". He was speaking here to a group of men who were already solidly grounded in the truth of the faith through the teaching of the Church, men who lacked nothing in terms of Christian doctrine, for they had received it from an infallible source. It was only then that Jesus told them to search the [Old Testament] scriptures so that they might understand the prophecies concerning Him, and thereby become FULLY knowledgeable. Obviously He could not have meant that the Scriptures would provide them with everything they needed to live the Christian life, since the only scriptures they had available to them were the Hebrew Scriptures. If He had commanded them to look only to the Scriptures, He would have been commanding them to reject His Own teaching, which at that time was not to be found in any Scripture!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 30, 2004.

Bravo, Paul;
Something tells me Mr. Gallo is one of those self-ordained ''ministers'' hispanics meet around their communities whose agenda is converting Catholics to his own sect. He writes like one. Manuel R. Gallo very likely was baptised in the Catholic Church, became lukewarm and eventually dropped out.

Many lukewarm hispanic (or Mexican) Catholics have an old banal bone to pick with priests and the Church. Divorce and re- marriage, for instance. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I suspect Mr. Gallo married in the Catholic Church and later was divorced. Since another marriage is always easier if you renege on your Catholic faith, he cooked up the usual bibliolater's faith, (I was born again!) falling back on free-lance interpretation of scripture. That might explain his facility with chapter- verse.

He really ought to look in his Bible for scriptural proof of self-ordinations. It would be interesting to see how scripture explains self- ordaned ministers. I have never seen any authority for such ordination.

If he ISN'T self-ordained, how in the world has he presumed to come here and ''teach'' us the Bible's meanings? --How about it, Preacher?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 30, 2004.

No my friend, you are few mistaken. I am an engineer and I like to research everything since the eight years old as King Josiah did. I try to show you information about the God's word and from your very own sources. That's wrong?.

More notes about Maria (Mary in English) Please put the Bible on your desk and check all versicles.

Among the truths that are plainly stated in the Christian Greek Scriptures is that Jesus Christ, when on earth, was the Son of God. In so many words he himself confessed to that fact to his opposers. (John 10:36) He also fully concurred with Peter’s confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Matthew 16:16, 17.

Further, those Scriptures clearly testify that Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. Thus the apostle Matthew tells that before Joseph and Mary were united in marriage “she was found with child through the power of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew comments that this was in fulfillment of the prophecy that “the virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son.” To the same import is Luke’s testimony that the angel Gabriel appeared to the virgin Mary and told her that she would conceive and give birth to a son by power of the holy spirit.—Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:30-35, New American Bible (a Catholic translation). Before the miraculous conception of Jesus was announced, Mary had become engaged to a man named Joseph, who was thus to become Jesus’ adoptive father.

There was compelling reason for Jesus to be born of a virgin. Had his mother been married and had she had intercourse with Joseph before she conceived by holy spirit, the question might well have been raised as to whose son Jesus was—God’s or Joseph’s. Besides, even as the high priest in Israel could marry only a virgin, so it was fitting that God use a virgin to bring forth his Son.

But was it necessary for Mary to remain a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus, and did she? In other words, was Jesus her only son or did she additionally have children by Joseph? Did Jesus have brothers and sisters—strictly speaking, half brothers and half sisters? The Scriptures give no reason why Mary should have remained a virgin. Having other children would have had no effect on Jesus. But did she or did she not bear other children?

No, say Roman Catholic theologians. A footnote on Mark 6:1-6 (New American Translation) states: “The question about the brothers of Jesus and his sisters (v 3) cannot easily be decided on linguistic grounds. . . . The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”

However, it is very difficult to find any basis in the Scriptures to support Mary’s “perpetual virginity.” For example, Matthew tells that Joseph “had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son, whom he named Jesus.” While not explicitly stating that she did have relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus, certainly that is implied by Matthew’s words. And the same can be said about Luke’s words that Mary “gave birth to her first-born son.”—Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7, New American Bible.

That she had other children besides Jesus is clear from the questions asked by Jesus’ townfolk who were well acquainted with his family: “Where did he get all this? What kind of wisdom is he endowed with? . . . Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters our neighbors here?”—Mark 6:2, 3, New American Bible. We can conclude from this that Jesus’ immediate family consisted of his parents, four brothers, and at least two sisters.

That Jesus had natural (half) brothers is also indicated by the fact that on one occasion he was told that “your mother and your brothers are standing out there and they wish to speak to you.” We further read that “not even his brothers had much confidence in him.”—Matthew 12:47; John 7:5, New American Bible.

Moreover, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, we read that among those present in the upper room in Jerusalem were, in addition to the eleven apostles, others, including “Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” It is therefore most likely that they were also present in the upper room when God’s holy spirit was poured out upon the one hundred and twenty disciples. (Acts 1:13-15; 2:1-4, New American Bible) And, years later, the apostle Paul mentions the “Lord’s brothers.”—1 Corinthians 9:5.

That Mary had other children also seems indicated by the incident that occurred when Jesus was twelve years old and Joseph took his family to Jerusalem for the festival. On the way back they had traveled a whole day before Mary noticed that Jesus was not with them. Had Jesus been her only child (and miraculously conceived at that), could we imagine her maternal instincts being so sleeping that she would have started out without him and not missed him for a whole day? But if by this time she had six or more children by Joseph, we can imagine her having been so busy that she might not have missed Jesus for a whole day.—Luke 2:41-50.

True, the question might be asked, If Mary had other children, why did Jesus entrust his mother to his apostle John instead of to her other children? For one thing, his other brothers may not have been at the site of his impalement, they apparently not yet having become believers. Also, of his disciples, John was closest to Jesus, and had a spiritual relationship with him that exceeded any natural relationship.—John 19:26, 27.

Arguing against all this testimony, Catholic theologians state: “Greek-speaking Semites used the terms adelphos and adelphe, not only in the ordinary sense [as meaning “brothers” and “sisters”], but also for nephew, niece, half-brother, half-sister, and cousin.” This argument was first presented by Jerome, the early Catholic Church “father,” and goes back no earlier than 383 C.E. But he produces neither Scripture nor tradition to support his position. The fact is that in his later writings he expressed misgivings as to the soundness of his theory that, when the Scriptures spoke of the “brothers” of Jesus, “cousins” were meant.—St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.

The fact is that, had others than brothers or sisters been involved, Bible characters and Bible writers would have used the Greek word for “relatives,” namely, 'syggenon'. Thus Jesus said: “A prophet is not unhonored except in his home territory and among his relatives and in his own house.” Clearly, here Jesus makes a distinction between “relatives” and those of one’s own house.—Mark 6:4.

Jesus made the same distinction when he said: “When you spread a dinner or evening meal, do not call your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors.”—Luke 14:12; 21:16.

Why has the Catholic Church made the matter of Mary’s being a virgin perpetually a teaching of the Church though it is without any support in tradition or Scripture? No doubt because of the sanctity that virginity is supposed to impart. But, according to the Bible, virginity is only a virtue among single persons. The apostle Paul tells married people not to deprive each other of the marital due, which Mary would have done had she remained a virgin after bearing Jesus.—1 Corinthians. 7:3-5.

Yes, we do no dishonor to Mary when we accept that she gave Joseph his marital due as a dutiful wife should and as a result had children besides Jesus. So, both reason and the Scriptures indicate that Jesus did have half brothers and half sisters.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The Greek words . . . that are used to designate the relationship between Jesus and these relatives have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense.” Also, The New American Bible, admits in a footnote on Mark 6:1-6, where Jesus’ brothers and sisters are mentioned: “The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”

The Bible clearly shows that Mary had other children besides Jesus; the Catholic Church’s teaching that she did not is what has created a controversy. Catholic author J. Gilles, who thoroughly examined all the Scriptural evidence on the subject, concluded: “Briefly and in measured language, out of faithfulness to the [Catholic] Church, I believe I can sum up my investigation as follows. . . . The FOUR CANONICAL GOSPELS provide concordant evidence . . . that Jesus had real brothers and sisters in his family. . . . In the face of this coherent block of proof the traditional position [of the Catholic Church] seems vulnerable and fragile.”

However, some today do not believe that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were children of Joseph and Mary. Why? “The Church,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “from its earliest days taught that Mary was always a virgin. In view of this, then, there can be no doubt that Mary did not have any other children.” The same reference work claims that the words “brother” and “sister” can refer to “some one or ones united in a religious or other common bond” or to relatives, perhaps cousins.

Is that really the case? Even some Catholic theologians, disagreeing with the traditional doctrine, support the view that Jesus had fleshly brothers and sisters. John P. Meier, former president of the Catholic Bible Association of America, wrote: “In the N[ew] T[estament] adelphos [brother], when used not merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical or legal relationship, means only full or half-brother, and nothing else.” Yes, the Scriptures indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were born to Joseph and Mary.

“The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective,” by J. P. Meier, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, January 1992, page 21.

Any questions?. Do you need more information?.

Best Regards

/Manuel

-- Manuel R. Gallo (Manuel_Gallo@hotmail.com), September 30, 2004.

Thanks for a prompt reply. You're some kind of ingeniero? Well, that's terrific. That doesn't qualify you to instruct Catholics, we figure here. Nor can it qualify you (or any protestant minister) to parse and interpret the scriptures. You have as much obligation as I to follow only that interpretation of the Old AND New Testaments given by the Church founded by our Saviour. That is, the apostolic Church. There is just one en la tierra and even the Bible has been entrusted to her by Christ.

Don't mistake my words for animosity. I only want to caution you against ''teaching'' here. We are a Catholic community, not Bible students. We accept a Catholic interpretation only for that Word of God. You should realize how fitting that is; since the Bible came to you as well as to us-- POR CONDUCTA DE LA SANTA IGLESIA, Straight from Jesus and his apostles. We have the Bible from God to His holy apostles and the Church. It would be absurd to begin 2,000 years afterward to learn a new interpretation given by anti- Catholic engineers. Your un-apostolic one, with gems like this:

''The Bible clearly shows that Mary had other children besides Jesus,'' Just one of your more serious errors.

No; the Bible does NOT say that clearly at all. I would expect you to find in the Bible a passage which states: ''Fulano de Tal-- hijo-- asi como Jesus, de Maria; un hermano del Senor.'' Only then would we agree with your biblical reading that Mary had other sons. Simply saying ''they were the brethren of Jesus,'' makes Mary no mother at all, except of one man; Jesus. He alone was her son.

We are all brethren. But we are not all born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the flesh. You can't interpret the Bible for yourself or for anybody, Ing. Gallo. You were not taught by Christ's Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 30, 2004.

Yes, we do no dishonor to Mary when we accept that she gave Joseph his marital due as a dutiful wife should and as a result had children besides Jesus.

Oh yeah? Listen, Manuel. If Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit then that makes Jesus a bastard. And if she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and she has relations with Joseph then that makes her an adulteress. Got it? I can't believe how STUPID you Protestants are!

If I were still a Catholic instead of an atheist I would punch you in the nose!!!

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Bravo DC-

When I was where you are, (and I was---absolutely.) I still found myself feeling some obligation or more acurately and inclanation to defend the Church --- even when my actual faith was nil.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 30, 2004.

I haven't had a chuckle like this one for a long time. " Got it? I can't believe how STUPID you Protestants are! " I shouldn't, but I'm laughing at that last bit of admiration.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Skepptic, That is really a profound thought - If not spouse of the Holy Ghost, Jesus is a bastard, if she is spouse of the Holy Ghost but have relation with Joseph, she is like an adulterous.

That makes perfect sense, that if Jesus himself teaches the sanctity of marriage and holiness, God would not have planned it in such a way to put His beloved mother or himself in such a position. I will keep that in mind the next time I encounter non-catholic who love to argue about Mary and her other children.

-- Anthony Yong (anthony.yong@gtech.com), September 30, 2004.

DC, your ignorancce of Hebrew doesn't make you see that Spirit is feminine, not masculine.

That is why even Jerome and others in quoting the Gospel of the Hebrews (similar to Matthew's Gospel) state that Jesus calls the Spirit her mother.

Origen on John, ii. 12. And if any accept the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour himself saith, 'Even now did my mother the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me away unto the great mountain Thabor', he will be perplexed, &c. . . .

On Jeremiah, homily xv.4. And if anyone receive that saying, 'Even now my mother the Holy Spirit took me and carried me up unto the great mountain Thabor', and the rest. . . Taken from: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html

Gospel of the Hebrews

This is a topic I had discussed in the past and I have avoided to discuss here again. You can search for my name or The Christian Yahwist and will find all of my posts.

The evidence is 95% to 5% that Jesus is not God Yahweh: Only about 10 verses are in contradiction: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son...(Mat 28),and God was the word, I and the Father are one, My lord and my God,...(John), I am the alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end...(Rev). Others could be easily expained.

But once I see people saying stuff like you just did, makes me reply. 1) As Manuel Stated: Jesus is God's son, not God Yahweh. Mark 1:10- 11...The Spirit decending upon like a dove. 11)and a voice from Heaven,"You are my beloved Son..." This shows the Father was in Heaven , so he could not be the Son.

2) Jesus is the Son of Joseph and Mary. He also had 4 brothers and 2 sisters: James, Joseph (Joses), Judas ,Simon, Salome,and mary...Mark 6:3,Mark 15:40, 16:1

3)Since Jesus prayed to God, he couldn't be God. Mark 14:32-36 "Sit here while I pray...Abba (father) all things are possible to you, remove this cup...Mark 15:34 "My God ,my God, why have you forsaken me?"

4) Jesus is descended from King David, thus from Joseph.Mark 10:46- 47..Jesus, Son of David,...Romans 1:3 The Gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh...Revelation 5:5 The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of david...

5) Luke calls Jesus a man and a prophet: Acts 2:22 Jesus of Nazareth, a manattested by God with mighty works... Acts 3:22 God Yahweh will raise a prophet for you....

6)God raised Jesus Acts 2:24 But God raised him up... (RSV)

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Elpidio have you ever heard of the Trinity? The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons in one God, so of course any two of these persons can relate to each other, can be in different places at the same time, etc. The verses you quote show that Jesus is a man. He is also God.

The Gospel of the Hebrews, while historically interesting, is not Scripture, not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Note how even Origen, before the canon of scripture was finalized, prefixes his quote with “IF anyone accepts the Gospel of the Hebrews”. He knew it was dubious even then.

“Jesus was the son of Joseph”. You claim you follow the Bible yet you flatly contradict it; the Bible explicitly states that Jesus was NOT the son of Joseph.

“a voice from Heaven,"You are my beloved Son..." This shows the Father was in Heaven , so he could not be the Son.“

Wrong. Jesus said “I and the Father are one. Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” There are only three possibilities about a man who claims to be God. 1. He is an evil liar. 2. He is a lunatic. 3. He is telling the truth. You can’t call yourself a Christian if you call Jesus a liar or a lunatic.

Some verses in the NT say “God” raised Jesus, others say "the Father" raised Him, others say "He rose" Himself, others say "the Spirit" raised Him. They all mean the same thing. Scripture does not contradict itself.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 30, 2004.

"your ignorancce of Hebrew doesn't make you see that Spirit is feminine, not masculine"

A: Really! You would think that Jesus, being God, would know this. But Jesus is quoted as saying ...

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, HE will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (John 14:26)

"But when HE, the Spirit of truth, comes, HE will guide you into all the truth; for HE will not speak on HIS own initiative, but whatever HE hears, HE will speak; and HE will disclose to you what is to come. (John 16:13)

You would think too that John, writing under the inspiration of that very Holy Spirit, would get it right. He tells us ...

"that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see HIM or know HIM, but you know HIM because HE abides with you and will be in you." (John 14:17)

Likewise Paul ...

"But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as HE wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11)

"In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit HIMSELF intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words" (Romans 8:26)

Origen and Jerome's pious sermons, while offering some interesting insights, do not override the Word of God, even though we recognize that all true love, male or female, is a reflection of God's love. We also recognize however that God actually has no gender. Still, He has chosen to speak of Himself in male terms.

"The evidence is 95% to 5% that Jesus is not God Yahweh: Only about 10 verses are in contradiction"

A: Only 10! How many times does God have to say something before you are willing to accept it? Seems to me once should be enough? "But of the Son He says, "Your throne, OH GOD, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of HIS KINGDOM". (Hebrews 1:8)

"and a voice from Heaven,"You are my beloved Son..." This shows the Father was in Heaven , so he could not be the Son."

A: Of course the Father isn't the Son! They are two completely distinct Persons. Divine Persons. God. This has been Christian doctrine from the beginning.

"Jesus is the Son of Joseph and Mary. He also had 4 brothers and 2 sisters: James, Joseph (Joses), Judas ,Simon, Salome,and Mary"

A: Jesus is the Son of God and Mary. When God told Mary, through His messenger, that she was to become the mother of His Son, He also told her how this was to come about, in spite of the fact that she had taken a vow of virginity.

"Since Jesus prayed to God, he couldn't be God."

A: On the contrary, since Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all distinct Persons, they can certainly converse freely with one another, even though they are all God.

"Jesus is descended from King David, thus from Joseph"

A: In Jewish culture it was the mother whose heritage was passed to the offspring. Jesus owed His human heritage and His human nature to Mary, and His divine heritage and divine nature to His Father in heaven.

"Luke calls Jesus a man and a prophet"

A: Jesus was a man and a prophet. He spoke many prophecies ("Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down" - Mark 13:2) However, He was also God, as shown by His constantly performing acts which no mere man could be capable of. He demonstrated that He had authority over death and sin.

"God raised Jesus Acts 2:24 But God raised him up..."

A: God raised Himself up ... "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I HAVE AUTHORITY TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN" (John 10:18) ... "Destroy this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP." (John 2:19)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 30, 2004.

Elpidio

I wouldn't necessarily espect for DC to see the "spirit" as feminine.

This has never been stressed as Catholic tradition, and would only be recocnised if you studied some of the gnostic prospectives.

I wouldn't have understood what you meant had I not studied or sifted through some other ideas.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 30, 2004.

Paul

Right or wrong, Elpidio recognises some of the scriptures that we as Catholics do not. The "spirit" is recognised by some as being feminine. I personally do not see this as a sticking point either way. I don't see masculine or feminine in the spirit. However there is quite a gnostic tradition that sees it differently.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), October 01, 2004.

I don't find anything enlightened about some things Elpidio's biblical study cooks up.

Our Lord refers to the Holy Spirit as HE. Since Jesus is God's only- begotten Son (which Elpidio denies) and He is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, we ought to take His holy word for it.

This in no way contradicts the truth in Catholic doctrine. God is not a gender.

Yet Christ is True Man, and as God has attributed to the Father real and True Fatherhood --Abba. And also to our Advocate some type of attributed male gender. We know for a certainty He is not a dove.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 01, 2004.

Jim,

Elpidio recognizes some writings which the Catholic Church does not recognize; but there are no Scriptures that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize. The Catholic Church alone defined, once and for all time, what is Scripture and what isn't.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 01, 2004.

Paul and Eugene,

I see both of your points and accept them. I come from a liberal background which as you probably notice, flares up from time to time.

I remember a friend in exasperation during a religious argument with me said I was more like a "Protestant-Jew." At the time, I was in my atheistic phase and I didn't know or care what to make of it.

Elpidio doesn't need me to explain or defend him. He's quite capable; its just that I can't help liking him.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 01, 2004.

That's OK, Jim;
I have nothing aginst Elpidio. You've seen me refute him, not attack him. Yes, he's a good sport about that.

My main complaint being always how we get essays on history, on spiritual living, on religion and --on Catholic doctrine; from these guys, who are either Catholic Church drop-outs or know-nothing historians. They have to be house broken, like puppies. Or they'll make a stinking mess. Yet, I also admit, despite the problems, I love puppy dogs.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 01, 2004.

Absolutement Eugene!!!

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 01, 2004.

Hi all,

I wish not to fight with you. If I work in an insignificant job, that is not reason to defeat me gentlemen. I am interested in religion matters too; I am human being, nothing else. After some years I conclude THE BIBLE is our Life Manual. I am a believer not a credulous.

When I have chance I mention to the people to examine what Bible recommends for us.

I invested two hours for you. Please fulfill the spaces. I wrote some sentences answer one by one please. Be kind guys.

Select "YES" or "NO".

1. I accept the Bible as the God's word instead of my personal opinions and I am enough humble to correct my long heritage tradition if I need. (2 Timothy 3:16,17; Proverbs 14:12)

YES____ NO____

2. I will try to follow the steps of Jesus Christ to keep true talking in a comfortable way about the God's word to increase and clarify my knowledge in order to be a man acceptable to God's eyes. (Proverbs 1:7; 2:1-9)

YES____ NO_____

3. I know that first disciples of Jesus Christ were very common people of Galilee. Matthew was a Tax Man; Simon, James, John and Andrew were a simple and common fishermen (as a simple driver, taylor, butcher or engineer nowadays) but enough modest to changed their point of view about worship. (Hebrew 4:12)

YES____ NO_____

Note 1: They did not receive formal religious instruction at all. (Acts 1:13)

Note 2: Mary was a Jew (very straight and formal line from King David) and she changed point of view too, she became a Christian afterwards. She walked on the steps of Jesus Christ, logically she prayed to the Yahweh God. Commandments of Jesus Christ without any change you remember: "YOU MUST PRAY, THIS WAY...". (as a kids isn't). I am a kid.

4. I know that Jesus Christ was a pacific man. When he was on Earth and he invited all to do the same. He tried to catch the attention pointing to the scriptures, always indicating: "It's written..." (Matthew 5:9; Matthew 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 11:10; 21:12; 26:24; 26:31)

YES____ NO_____

5. I know That Jesus Christ invite to everybody to get and understand the Truth from the Holy Scriptures. He always pointed to the God's word as the absolute. (Luke 10:25-28; John 17:17)

YES____ NO_____

6. I know Jesus Christ was murdered because he told to the Pharisees, teachers and scribes the hoax of human traditions. He remarked to obey for God's word (Mark 7:1-7; Luke 23:13-25)

YES____ NO_____

7. I understand the beginning of the "Credo Pray" that my priests tough me to repeat many times when I was "bad":

"I believe in One God, Powerful Father, Creator of Heavens and Earth, all visible and invisible. I believe in only Lord, Jesus Christ, Only Son of God..." This reject the trinity pagan teaching totally.

YES____ NO_____

By the way:

I know that "trinity" word is not exists in either part of Bible (All population in the world since 1513 b. C. have never read this single word in Bible).

YES____ NO_____

8. I understand very clear that Mary (mother of Jesus) was a no perfect human because she presented a purification offering at the temple, as good Jew obedient to GOD. (Leviticus 16:30; Romans 3:23, 5:12)

YES____ NO____

Note: Do not think badly because they offered a two small birds. This reveals something about the economic situation of the young parents of Jesus: Joseph (step- father) and Mary.

9. Jesus Christ explained an illustration of the sower of the field; He is the sower of fine seeds. The enemy is the Devil. I understand that in the outcome, at the end of the world, the reapers (angels) will separate weed like imitation Khristians, and will marked for destruction. Who are they?. Jesus said: Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but the ONE DOING THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in the heavens will. (Matthew 7:21)

Conclusion: I need to do All GOD says in the Bible (ONLY WHAT HE SAYS).

YES____ NO_____

10. I need to study the Bible for my whole life as Jesus invited to real Christians: 'Jesus said to them: “My food is for me to do the will of H I M that sent me and to finish H I S work' (Remember: his mother was only his natural human mother) (Isaiah 30:21; Joshua 1:7,8; Proverbs 8:32,33)

YES____ NO_____

If only one "NO" field is marked means an urgent necessity of reading Bible. Why?. This is the Basic Level.

Next questionnaire is about Hebrew and Koine Greek languages. My father is a Jew who born in Greece. Fasten Seat Belts.

Best Regards.

/Manuel

-- Manuel R. Gallo (Manuel_Gallo@hotmail.com), October 01, 2004.

Dear Sir:
It is arrogance to give other Christians a written questionnaire with your demand ''Answer only Yes or No'' as if they had an obligation to submit to your examination. You didn't receive power from the Holy Spirit.

I will never instruct you according to my own light, as you presume here to treat us. Every word of advice or correction or counsel you would get from me comes by way of the apostolic teachings of Christs' Holy Church. I received every doctrine there. You would be getting the doctrine from Christ Himself, who gave it to His apostles, who preserved it in His Church for all ages. That full doctrinal truth is what we read the Bible for; not merely to support every private opinion.

Therefore, it is absurd to say Catholics must give up all traditions of men. We know just Sacred Tradition in the Church. It is not man's tradition. Christ only argued against a passing tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees. He fully expected His Church to keep its holy Tradition.

We have the Church's lasting authority to teach us, as Christ intended it (Matt 18, :16-18). He granted it to His apostles and their disciples, who have passed it on in succession to us, by the laying on of hands (Acts, 6 :3-7). From that early succession in the Church we have been given every ordained priest and bishop of the Catholic faith from the beginning until now. And from God the Holy Spirit in the same Church we have the Holy Bible.

You wouldn't have any Bible without the Church. And, without the Church, you cannot have certainty of interpretation according to our apostolic teaching. There are NO free lance interpreters of God's Word. Without the Church to keep human error out, (infallible authority) the Bible can be interpreted falsely. Exactly the way you do it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 02, 2004.

Manuel

I know your intentions are good.

Its just that your survey suggest that we know nothing. There are a lot of short fuses here for good rason

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 02, 2004.

Reason, reason, reason.

The nuns told me this would work one day. They were a bit more serious. I would write it 100 tines--- I did, and I'm not bitter about it,

The "times" tables I must admit I still hold some "perhaps" unreasonable anger about. I wrote them so many times over and over. and still have trouble with 7 x 8, not to mention 6 x 13.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 02, 2004.

3 X Times. This would never have worked,

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 02, 2004.

Hi Manuel,

It seems like you have been programmed to be a "Sola Scriptura" follower. You keep putting strict emphasis on the "Bible". I am confused with you. Do you worship the Bible or God? Your questionaire looks like you have taken a hugh masterpiece of Scriptures and cut it into a pretty neat piece of folk art. You have left out many parts that make a painting a masterpiece. Perhaps you should make the slate clean in your mind and heart and start all over again with your faith.

I do have respect for you because you are making the effort to understand and follow Christ's teachings. But, you have been taught with poorly shapened lenses, which have blurred many important teachings God has provided.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 02, 2004.

1. I accept the Bible as the God's word instead of my personal opinions and I am enough humble to correct my long heritage tradition if I need. (2 Timothy 3:16,17; Proverbs 14:12)

A: I accept the Bible, AUTHORITATIVELY and ACCURATELY interpreted, as God's Word. Anything less is simply human ideas about God's Word, which carry no authority at all. The Church changes its traditions often, to meet the needs of an ever-changing world. But it cannot change Apostolic Tradition, which is the Word of God. That's why the bible tells us "... stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us". (2 Thessalonians 2:15) "Hold fast to" means "DON'T change"!

2. I will try to follow the steps of Jesus Christ to keep true talking in a comfortable way about the God's word to increase and clarify my knowledge in order to be a man acceptable to God's eyes. (Proverbs 1:7; 2:1-9)

A: Yes! And I will do so according to the means Christ provided - through a Church which possesses the power of binding and loosing, which holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and which has the divine promise of true doctrine. To try to follow Jesus any other way would be futile.

3. I know that first disciples of Jesus Christ were very common people of Galilee. Matthew was a Tax Man; Simon, James, John and Andrew were a simple and common fishermen (as a simple driver, taylor, butcher or engineer nowadays) but enough modest to changed their point of view about worship. (Hebrew 4:12)

A: Yes, Jews who converted to Catholicism did indeed "change their view about worship". And about a lot of other things. They still do. So do protestants who return to the True Church.

"Note 1: They did not receive formal religious instruction at all"

A: What does that mean? They didn't attend a university? Maybe their teaching was "informal", but daily instruction for three years with Jesus Christ Himself as the teacher sounds like a pretty intense course of study to me.

4. I know that Jesus Christ was a pacific man. When he was on Earth and he invited all to do the same. He tried to catch the attention pointing to the scriptures, always indicating: "It's written..." (Matthew 5:9; Matthew 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 11:10; 21:12; 26:24; 26:31)

A: Sorry, I don't follow you here? pacific? meaning peaceful? Actually he knew the value of peace, but didn't glorify peace. When it was necessary to take unpeaceful action, such as driving the money changers out of the temple, He did so. Anyway, I don't see the connection to the passages you listed.

5. I know That Jesus Christ invite to everybody to get and understand the Truth from the Holy Scriptures. He always pointed to the God's word as the absolute. (Luke 10:25-28; John 17:17)

A: Jesus called upon the Apostles, who were already thouroughly versed in the truth, to search the Old Testament scriptures (the only Scriptures which then existed), in order to understand the prophecies concerning the Messiah. He never told anyone that they should find the truth of the Christian faith in a book. No such book existed. He did say that the Word of God - His own verbal teaching - was absolute. He defined the Word of God in this way ... "He who hears you hears Me". In other words, "What you teach as the ordained bishops of My Church is My own teaching, My own Word".

6. I know Jesus Christ was murdered because he told to the Pharisees, teachers and scribes the hoax of human traditions. He remarked to obey for God's word (Mark 7:1-7; Luke 23:13-25)

A: Yes. Jesus denounced mere human tradition and substituted Apostolic Tradition, the Word of God, the teaching of His Church. Later, some of the Word of God He had given His Church was written down. And about three centuries later some of what was written down was compiled into a book. However, neither the writing of this teaching nor the compilation into a book made the teaching any more authoritative. It was the Word of God from the moment Jesus - God - spoke it. And His Church was preaching the complete Word of God before it was ever written, and long before the Bible was compiled. And His Church would still be preaching and teaching that same Word of God today, in spirit and in truth, even if the Bible had never been compiled.

7. I understand the beginning of the "Credo Pray" that my priests tough me to repeat many times when I was "bad": "I believe in One God, Powerful Father, Creator of Heavens and Earth, all visible and invisible. I believe in only Lord, Jesus Christ, Only Son of God..." This reject the trinity pagan teaching totally.

A: If you reject the Trinity, you do not hold the Christian faith. What faith do you ascribe to anyway? Are you a JW? LDS?

"I know that "trinity" word is not exists in either part of Bible (All population in the world since 1513 b. C. have never read this single word in Bible)".

A: So what? If I say "it has power steering, automatic transmission, power brakes, and a 200 hp V-8 engine", are you totally confused as to what I am talking about? Just because I didn't use the word "car"? The Bible is absolutely full of references to the Trinity, both collectively and as individual Persons. When the specific term "Trinity" was chosen to describe this obvious reality is completely irrelevant.

8. I understand very clear that Mary (mother of Jesus) was a no perfect human because she presented a purification offering at the temple, as good Jew obedient to GOD. (Leviticus 16:30; Romans 3:23, 5:12)

A: No, Mary was not a "perfect human". There is no such thing as a perfect human. God alone is perfect. However, Mary was completely free of sin, and therefore morally perfect. We know this by the only authority Christ gave us for defining the truth - the Word of God in the form of the teaching of His Church. Mary went through the purification rite for exactly the reason you stated - to conform to the requirements of her Jewish faith. Not because she personally needed it.

9. Jesus Christ explained an illustration of the sower of the field; He is the sower of fine seeds. The enemy is the Devil. I understand that in the outcome, at the end of the world, the reapers (angels) will separate weed like imitation Khristians, and will marked for destruction. Who are they?. Jesus said: Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but the ONE DOING THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in the heavens will. (Matthew 7:21) Conclusion: I need to do All GOD says in the Bible (ONLY WHAT HE SAYS).

A: Yes, I need to do ALL that God has commanded. Among the things God has commended us to do are: belong to the Church He founded for all men; receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist; confess our sins to those ordained to minister His forgiveness; accept the teaching of the Church as His own Word; be baptized in the name of the Trinity; perform works of Christian charity. Do you do ALL that Christ has commanded? If you don't belong to His Church, you do not.

10. I need to study the Bible for my whole life as Jesus invited to real Christians: 'Jesus said to them: “My food is for me to do the will of H I M that sent me and to finish H I S work' (Remember: his mother was only his natural human mother) (Isaiah 30:21; Joshua 1:7,8; Proverbs 8:32,33)

A: Yes, we must never stop learning more about the Bible and the rest of His teaching, under the guidance of the pillar and foundation of truth, His Church. Without the pillar and foundation, a structure collapses; and the truth collapses into denominational fragments when we attempt to know it apart from the foundation of truth. Byut simply knowing the truth is not enough either, for as you so rightly pointed out, we are commanded to DO the will of the Father, to participate in His WORK. Not just to believe.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 02, 2004.

Paul,

Thanks for taking the time to answer all Manuel's questions. It was instructive and beneficial for Catholics like me, as well as Manuel.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 02, 2004.

To Matthew, Truth-seeker--
Matthew, we are true Christians because we are Catholics.

You may think you were raised a traditional Catholic, and I sincerely hope you were. Now for the time being, you think you read the bible for the real truth.

But I know of Jehovah's Witnesses who read it. They quote from it in the watch Tower. All Amish are Bible readers. Why don't these good people believe their Bible along the same lines as the Jehovah's Witnesses? Your bible reading is almost like theirs. You fail to see the truth they think they see. Your Bible tells you what YOU decide to believe. But what if what you want to believe isn't the same as what every apostle originally preached, even about your own salvation? Would you run to the nearest telephone and call up the apostles?

You couldn't. But you sure COULD call their Church. Just as Catholics do every day, reading their own Bibles. They have all of the apostles' true teachings. We have; in the Catholic Church. You don't. Not as if you knew everything the apostles knew for the truth. You simply pick out of your Bible whatever strikes your fancy, and ignore many truths. You mot as well be a Jehovah's Witness. A little closer to the real truth? maybe; but THE SAME BOTTOM LINE.

We have all the truth as God has revealed it through His Son Our Lord. In the Bible (Luke 1 :28) we read that Mary is ''full of grace.'' And, in Luke 1 :48, that ''all generations shall call her blessed We love the BLESSED Virgin of Guadalupe!

--We can thank God you come from Catholic parents. I hope they pray for you, even to the Blessed Virgin Mary. You may not be a hopeless case. But sometimes even in hopeless cases, prayers for Mary's holy intercession are answered. We'll see.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.

wow, you guys are phenom. it's hard to read a discussion and not be able to imput anything because all arguments have already been considered. so i have to be content with a few mere side notes, none of which are meant to detract anyone from any faith, but basically more or less to settle questions that i have.

i think dj posted that jesus would be a bastard if mary was not espoused to the holy spirit... okay, so on that thinking, mary is a bigamist because she's married to God and to Joseph? perhaps we should look to the type, Jesus is the new Adam. God formed Adam from dust, God formed Jesus also. does this necessarily mean that mary must be married to the holy spirit? maybe this formation of an embryo is more like the way God formed Adam, only this time he used an egg instead of dust. mary is the vessel of a creation, not the spouse of the one who used the vessel. ???

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 12, 2005.

What is it about the word virgin that you need explained? If a woman is a virgin, how can she be a bigamist too? If an angel of God tells her she is full of grace, why should her marriage to joseph worry us? She remained a holy virgin, by the special grace of God.

Jesus is not a creation. He is Son of God, and Mary's holy Son. She is only a spouse of the holy Spirit through the conception of her Son; not by wedding. Her wedding was a formality, and Saint Joseph is her husband, but not united in the flesh. He became the foster-father of Jesus by marrying the Blessed Virgin.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.