KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

With respect

I believe it has been established that the cloth dates centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore the image is not of our Lord.

---

That is not correct. A claim was made that a tested portion of the cloth was from later, but that portion was not from the original cloth but additional backing added later to reinforce the fabric. The original cloth has been tested and is known to be consistent with the 1st century. More detailed testing is not possible because so much fabric would be needed that it would deface the image.


Also, you have not even attempted to explain how the image was formed. Kind of a big thing to ignore, sir.

---

Have not read anything remotely similar to your cloth dating explanation. Have only read the cloth involved was from a far later period.

And if the cloth is not of the 1st century it is irrelevant how the image was formed.

FWIW I get no enjoyment pointing out the likelihood the image is not of Jesus Christ.

---

You might want to actually read what I wrote.

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

With respect

I believe it has been established that the cloth dates centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore the image is not of our Lord.

---

That is not correct. A claim was made that a tested portion of the cloth was from later, but that portion was not from the original cloth but additional backing added later to reinforce the fabric. The original cloth has been tested and is known to be consistent with the 1st century. More detailed testing is not possible because so much fabric would be needed that it would deface the image.


Also, you have not even attempted to explain how the image was formed. Kind of a big thing to ignore, sir.

---

Have not read anything remotely similar to your cloth dating explanation. Have only read the cloth involved was from a far later period.

And if the cloth is not of the 1st century it is irrelevant how the image was formed.

FWIW I get no enjoyment pointing out the likelihood the image is not of Jesus Christ.

---

You might want to actually read what I wrote.

---

KaiBear said:

---

With respect

I believe it has been established that the cloth dates centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore the image is not of our Lord.

---

First of all, carbon dating is not reliable. Secondly, the Shroud had been exposed to a fire which would throw off the dates.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Also, you have not even attempted to explain how the image was formed. Kind of a big thing to ignore, sir.

---

Not really. If the image on the Shroud (and the facecloth) are authentic the technical aspects of their formation are inseparably intertwined with the technical aspects of raising a dead man...and that is something all the doctors and biologists on earth will not be able to answer for you.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone

Jesus is coming back soon. Tell everyone you know that they need to place their faith in Him, believing that He died and rose again for their sins.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Jesus is coming back soon. Tell everyone you know that they need to place their faith in Him, believing that He died and rose again for their sins.

---

Absolutely. But this is the beginning of the story, not the end.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believeand tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

James 2:14-24

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Jesus is coming back soon. Tell everyone you know that they need to place their faith in Him, believing that He died and rose again for their sins.

---

Absolutely. But this is the beginning of the story, not the end.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believeand tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

James 2:14-24

---

Well said. This is something I feel a lot of people miss.

When you apply for a job, you are asking to be allowed to join the employer in doing what the employer does. When you try out for a team, you are asking to play that sport as part of the team. If you are in an orchestra, you perform the music made for that orchestra (Tolkien had some great thoughts along that line).

So it should be simple to understand that becoming a Christian means you want to follow Christ, to do as He does and seek what pleases Him. Far too many religious people imagine that they can say certain phrases and take certain postures, and they will share in all the pleasures and rewards of Heaven, not understanding the need to be reconciled and aligned with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Also, you have not even attempted to explain how the image was formed. Kind of a big thing to ignore, sir.

---

Not really. If the image on the Shroud (and the facecloth) are authentic the technical aspects of their formation are inseparably intertwined with the technical aspects of raising a dead man...and that is something all the doctors and biologists on earth will not be able to answer for you.

---

I think it was caused by a bright light when Christ rose again. It could have been intense radiation or something Spiritual or something else. No one knows.

Did you watch the videos I posted about the history of the Catholic Church????

Good Works do not save. The Holy Spirit saves us by the washing of regeneration.


Titus 3:5 KJV
[5] not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Good Works do not save. The Holy Spirit saves us by the washing of regeneration.


Titus 3:5 KJV
[5] not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

---

Salvation is by grace, through faith, evidenced by works.

frodo: "washing of regeneration"

I worry that phrases like that become totems. It becomes too easy to treat Jesus like He works for us rather than remember He is Lord and seek His pleasure.

In this time of the year, as we approach Advent, it may help to remind ourselves that Christ was in no way obligated to live among us, as one of us. And certainly no one can claim we have any right to the Grace of God offered in the Gospel. The amazing depth and profound character of Jesus' love for us resounds through all the accounts of service and humility by our Lord.

Knowing these things, once a person accepts Christ as his or her Lord, it should not cause us any resentment or grudging reluctance to accept whatever the Lord tells us to do. Rather, we should be delighted to be able to take part in such service, and to be changed in who and whose we are through the Holy Spirit.

To learn that we should produce fruit is not a thing we should regard as earning redemption, but a gift from God that we are allowed to be part of His work and plan.

Oldbear83 said:

---

frodo: "washing of regeneration"

I worry that phrases like that become totems. It becomes too easy to treat Jesus like He works for us rather than remember He is Lord and seek His pleasure.

In this time of the year, as we approach Advent, it may help to remind ourselves that Christ was in no way obligated to live among us, as one of us. And certainly no one can claim we have any right to the Grace of God offered in the Gospel. The amazing depth and profound character of Jesus' love for us resounds through all the accounts of service and humility by our Lord.

Knowing these things, once a person accepts Christ as his or her Lord, it should not cause us any resentment or grudging reluctance to accept whatever the Lord tells us to do. Rather, we should be delighted to be able to take part in such service, and to be changed in who and whose we are through the Holy Spirit.

To learn that we should produce fruit is not a thing we should regard as earning redemption, but a gift from God that we are allowed to be part of His work and plan.

---

Grace is when God does something for you that you cannot do for yourself. Human will or merit is left out. FAITH in God is the only thing we can do to please Him.

I agree that if a person truly has faith in Christ and His Death and Resurrection Blood Sacrifice to pay for our sins, then He is going to submit to the will of God and Obey Him BECAUSE God saved Him. Good works do not save and if you add works to Grace, you nullify Grace. That's what Paul said. This verse is talking about people who are trying to add to God's Grace or good works to save:


Galatians 5:2-4 KJV

[2] "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. [3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. [4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
"

As the result of our FAITH God extends HIS Grace on us:. We Access God's Grace through our FAITH in Christ Alone

Romans 5:2 KJV

[2] by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

---

It is my understanding that most non-RCC theologians say the Church is Christ's Queen, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matthew 22:1-4

Luke 12:36

Revelation 19:7-9

Christ also made clear who was his family in Matthew 12:46-50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother".

---

I don't see queen listed in any of these passages. Scripture refers to Christ's bride as the Church. Not as a Queen. As realitybites mentioned, the Hebrews never referred to the King's wife as Queen. The Queen was always the King's mother.

With respect to Matthew 12:46-50, many Protestants try so present this as Jesus reducing the importance of Mary and His family. Quite the contrary. Jesus, who would never break the 4th commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother, is stating that as important as family is, those that do God's will are part of His Kingdom, which is ultimately the most important thing.

---

** sigh **

Bottom line, the Gospel accounts very clearly do not regard Mary with the status given by so many Roman Catholics.

All the double-talk in Rome won't change that.

---

Would you say, then, that those prayers to Mary which call her "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Co-Mediatrix", "god of this world" and that we should "entrust our soul and salvation into her hands" are heretical and idolatrous?

---

BTD, I understand your desire to start a bar fight among the denominations. I prefer trying to persuade Coke Bear and Curtpenn to recognize the danger in such choice of words.

The simple fact that people who never met Mary are praying to her is heading down a dangerous road. Not unlike playing with a Quija board, you don't really know who or what is talking to you.

---

So.....when you do it, it's ok, but when others do it, it's "starting bar fights"?

Amazing how that works.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

---

It is my understanding that most non-RCC theologians say the Church is Christ's Queen, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matthew 22:1-4

Luke 12:36

Revelation 19:7-9

Christ also made clear who was his family in Matthew 12:46-50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother".

---

I don't see queen listed in any of these passages. Scripture refers to Christ's bride as the Church. Not as a Queen. As realitybites mentioned, the Hebrews never referred to the King's wife as Queen. The Queen was always the King's mother.

With respect to Matthew 12:46-50, many Protestants try so present this as Jesus reducing the importance of Mary and His family. Quite the contrary. Jesus, who would never break the 4th commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother, is stating that as important as family is, those that do God's will are part of His Kingdom, which is ultimately the most important thing.

---

** sigh **

Bottom line, the Gospel accounts very clearly do not regard Mary with the status given by so many Roman Catholics.

All the double-talk in Rome won't change that.

---

Would you say, then, that those prayers to Mary which call her "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Co-Mediatrix", "god of this world" and that we should "entrust our soul and salvation into her hands" are heretical and idolatrous?

---

BTD, I understand your desire to start a bar fight among the denominations. I prefer trying to persuade Coke Bear and Curtpenn to recognize the danger in such choice of words.

The simple fact that people who never met Mary are praying to her is heading down a dangerous road. Not unlike playing with a Quija board, you don't really know who or what is talking to you.

---

So.....when you do it, it's ok, but when others do it, it's "starting bar fights"?

Amazing how that works.

---

Please show me the posts where I insult entire Christian denominations, as you have.

Mary is a good woman and worthy of honor and respect as the Mother of our Lord, but she was a sinner and not to be prayed to because she is not God. Only God is to be prayed to. A Catholic friend of mine contends that Catholics don't pray to her, but rather are asking her to pray for them. Either way I believe it's in appropriate.

Gavin Newsome is debating Ron Desantis on Fox News right now, proving that Biden will drop out and Newsome will run

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

---

It is my understanding that most non-RCC theologians say the Church is Christ's Queen, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matthew 22:1-4

Luke 12:36

Revelation 19:7-9

Christ also made clear who was his family in Matthew 12:46-50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother".

---

I don't see queen listed in any of these passages. Scripture refers to Christ's bride as the Church. Not as a Queen. As realitybites mentioned, the Hebrews never referred to the King's wife as Queen. The Queen was always the King's mother.

With respect to Matthew 12:46-50, many Protestants try so present this as Jesus reducing the importance of Mary and His family. Quite the contrary. Jesus, who would never break the 4th commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother, is stating that as important as family is, those that do God's will are part of His Kingdom, which is ultimately the most important thing.

---

** sigh **

Bottom line, the Gospel accounts very clearly do not regard Mary with the status given by so many Roman Catholics.

All the double-talk in Rome won't change that.

---

Would you say, then, that those prayers to Mary which call her "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Co-Mediatrix", "god of this world" and that we should "entrust our soul and salvation into her hands" are heretical and idolatrous?

---

BTD, I understand your desire to start a bar fight among the denominations. I prefer trying to persuade Coke Bear and Curtpenn to recognize the danger in such choice of words.

The simple fact that people who never met Mary are praying to her is heading down a dangerous road. Not unlike playing with a Quija board, you don't really know who or what is talking to you.

---

So.....when you do it, it's ok, but when others do it, it's "starting bar fights"?

Amazing how that works.

---

Please show me the posts where I insult entire Christian denominations, as you have.

---

Can you show me where I insulted them? You don't seem to have the ability of discerning "insult" from "telling the truth". Also, that question was for YOU, not them.

Apparently, it's perfectly ok for you confront Catholics about their violent past, but it's "insulting an entire denomination" and "starting a bar fight" if I confront them about their idolatry of Mary. In addition, if I ask YOU for a direct answer to a question, apparently I'm "demanding, bullying, being a Pharisee, etc" but when you do it to someone else, it's perfectly fine.

I don't expect you to acknowledge your hypocrisy. But there it is.

And it still hasn't escaped notice that you STILL have not answered the question. I find it very disconcerting that a professed Christian would ever have a big problem acknowledging those prayers as being idolatrous.

Ah, with Christmastime comes the return of the Angry Pharisee.

As predictable as reruns of the Grinch or Scrooge ...

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Mary is a good woman and worthy of honor and respect as the Mother of our Lord, but she was a sinner and not to be prayed to because she is not God. Only God is to be prayed to. A Catholic friend of mine contends that Catholics don't pray to her, but rather are asking her to pray for them. Either way I believe it's in appropriate.

---

Yes, Catholics are "asking" Mary.....through PRAYER to her.

The fact that they're "asking" doesn't make it NOT a prayer. This Catholic argument just doesn't make any sense. It's trying to make a distinction without a difference.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, with Christmastime comes the return of the Angry Pharisee.

As predictable as reruns of the Grinch or Scrooge ...

---

Right on cue - the "pharisee" retort.

It's what you go to when you've got no answer. If you're looking for predictability, then look no further.

In the absurd hope that BTD will finally listen to Reason, I will respond to his latest cheap shot.

I must admit I am amused to once again be falsely accused of hypocrisy by those who practice such dishonesty throughout this thread, but it's far too much to expect admission of that fact.

But to the points. I certainly have answered all relevant questions in this thread, I simply refuse to be anyone's puppet or pawn, especially when those individuals use these threads to defame large denominations.

The distinction, clearly lost on BTD, is that I have made clear my opinion that praying to Mary the Mother of Christ is a bad idea, not only because it is too easy to cross the line from asking Mary's help to worshipping Mary with titles properly reserved for God alone., but also because praying to someone you have never personally met is dubious in both moral standing and efficacy of purpose. It does not make sense to pray to Abraham or Moses, even though those were both very good men in the eyes of God, so why pray to Mary, who was never a prophet or teacher of the Law?

Where BTD goes that I do not, is in claiming that Roman Catholics are as a group guilty of idolatry. I take a more restrained position, because I recognize that you can find sinful behavior in any life if you look deep enough, as none of us is worthy to stand on the merits of our own work and words in the sight of God. Further, what one Catholic does can be very different from another Catholic, same as Baptists or any other denomination. And I certainly believe that if you want to criticize a group, you should stick to facts and avoid inflammatory language.

I suspect BTD thinks I am a 'hypocrite', because we both noted that CurtPenn did not give a straight yes/no response to a direct question. The difference is that my question noted a specific historical action, while BTD's question demanded admission of anti-Christian behavior. I am not surprised that BTD did not observe the distinction.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

TGIF & don't forget to find a good Bible Believing Church this Sunday.

OldBear is confused. He has not, and never has answered the question. In his latest post, he dodged it yet again. Here is the question, once more:

Is it heretical, blasphemous, or idolatrous to call Mary "sovereign", "Co-Mediatrix", "intercessor between sinners and God", "glory of heaven", "ruler of my household", and to say that one "places my eternal salvation and soul" into Mary's hands?

This isn't a question about Catholics as individuals, or whether they are being sinful. This isn't a question about the motives or beliefs of anyone who cites these prayers. This isn't a question about whether it's a "bad idea" or "crossing the line" to say these things. The question is simply whether or not those statements are idolatrous and heretical. That's it. You don't need to dance around it, just answer it. It doesn't matter how "restrained" one wants to be - those statements are either idolatrous and heretical, or they are not. How "restrained" one wants to be has no effect on the answer. It is not difficult to be able to answer either "yes, because..." or "no, because...", or even "neither, because....". Heck, I'll even take "I don't know". That'd be a TERRIBLE answer for a professing Christian, but hey, at least it's a direct answer.

OldBear has not answered it, and I suspect he will never answer it. And that precisely has been the point of me asking. Silence is louder than words. OldBear, for whatever reason (probably pride), just can't get himself to acknowledge a simple truth that should be more than obvious to anyone who is a Christian and who has the Holy Spirit. For a professing Christian to have such trouble with it, that is very concerning.

Oldbear83 said:

---

....
I suspect BTD thinks I am a 'hypocrite', because we both noted that CurtPenn did not give a straight yes/no response to a direct question. The difference is that my question noted a specific historical action, while BTD's question demanded admission of anti-Christian behavior. I am not surprised that BTD did not observe the distinction.

---

This is another example of distinction without a difference. A person's refusal to acknowledge history is no different than YOUR refusal to acknowledge basic Christian truth. Falsity is falsity. It's sad that a professing Christian hasn't discerned this.

And it wasn't CurtPenn that you were criticizing for not giving a direct answer, it was CokeBear. You don't know who you've been arguing with for two whole pages?? And your hypocrisy goes much further than what you are acknowledging. I think that's been clearly demonstrated in this thread. I'll say it again, I don't expect you to be able to see it. There's too much in the way for that.

As expected (sadly), BTD falls back on false accusations and seething contempt in not one but two lengthy rants simply because he failed to bully me into being his puppet.

What a sad, petty person he has become.

Cage match between BTD and Old Bear!

In the English language, the definition of prayer is as follows: "The act or ceremony of speaking to God(s), esp to express thanks, or to ask for help, or the words used in this act."

So by definition communication with the saints is not prayer, as the saints are not Gods and the term "praying to Mary" is in inaccurate description of what is taking place. Now if you believe that Mary is your co-redemptrix and are actually praying to her as you would to God, then you have adopted an un-Christian vision of the Trinity and have a bigger issue than simply your prayer for this becomes idolatry. Despite the many problems that the Roman Catholic church has developed regarding Mary in the past thousand years, I doubt that most lay Roman Catholics cross this line. Things like Roman Catholic leadership venerating the pagan South American Pachamama idol as an avatar of Mary are much more problematic than what lay Roman Catholics believe in this regard.

The real question is this: are Christians who have gone before us alive as Jesus says they are (John 11:26) and are aware of events on earth (Hebrews 12:1, Luke 15:10, Revelation 6:9-11, Revelation 5:8)? If so, there is no reason why we should limit our prayer requests to the few people who share our pews. In such a case, asking Mary, or Nicholas of Myra, or any of the martyrs from previous generations to pray for us is no different than posting a prayer request on this forum...and almost all cases is better.

I assure you that you would be better off asking Mary and the Apostles to pray for you than you would be asking me to pray for you because "The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:16) and I'm not worthy to hold Ignatius' jock strap.

Serious question, Realitybites:

Suppose someone wants to speak to someone who is dead. Following the template of the Hail Mary, this someone mentally and emotionally focuses on the person they want to contact, just as they would if they were praying to God, and asks for that person to hear them and respond, again just as happens in prayer.

If that someone is not praying to that person, what is the means of contact?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Realitybites said:

---

In the English language, the definition of prayer is as follows: "The act or ceremony of speaking to God(s), esp to express thanks, or to ask for help, or the words used in this act."

So by definition communication with the saints is not prayer, as the saints are not Gods and the term "praying to Mary" is in inaccurate description of what is taking place. Now if you believe that Mary is your co-redemptrix and are actually praying to her as you would to God, then you have adopted an un-Christian vision of the Trinity and have a bigger issue than simply your prayer for this becomes idolatry. Despite the many problems that the Roman Catholic church has developed regarding Mary in the past thousand years, I doubt that most lay Roman Catholics cross this line. Things like Roman Catholic leadership venerating the pagan South American Pachamama idol as an avatar of Mary are much more problematic than what lay Roman Catholics believe in this regard.

The real question is this: are Christians who have gone before us alive as Jesus says they are (John 11:26) and are aware of events on earth (Hebrews 12:1, Luke 15:10, Revelation 6:9-11, Revelation 5:8)? If so, there is no reason why we should limit our prayer requests to the few people who share our pews. In such a case, asking Mary, or Nicholas of Myra, or any of the martyrs from previous generations to pray for us is no different than posting a prayer request on this forum...and almost all cases is better.

I assure you that you would be better off asking Mary and the Apostles to pray for you than you would be asking me to pray for you because "The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:16) and I'm not worthy to hold Ignatius' jock strap.

---

.

That's a man made definition of prayer. There is a lot more to prayer than that, communion with God, Praise, submission to His Will, Faith in Him and much more. Praying to Mary is to place your trust in Her over the Creator of her and all things.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Cage match between BTD and Old Bear!

---

Not at all what is going on. Sad if you think that is the motive or focus.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Cage match between BTD and Old Bear!

---

Not at all what is going on. Sad if you think that is the motive or focus.

---

It was a joke. Grow a sense of humor.