What does the Immaculate Conception mean and is it in the Bible?

The doctrines of the Catholic Church need not be EXPLICITLY in Scripture. It is enough that they don't contradict Scripture and are consistent with Scripture.

The doctrine of the Immaculate conception is one of those. This doctrine says that Mary 1. was born without original sin and
2. never committed sin in her life.

Does Scripture say that Mary was born without Original Sin?

For that we must know what is Original Sin? Original Sin is the absence of Original Justice.

What is Original Justice? Original Justice is the condition in which Adam and Eve were created. They were created in a condition of friendship with God.

Adam and Eve lost Original Justice when they betrayed God by listening to Satan's suggestions rather than to God's command. At that moment they entered a condition of Original Sin. A condition of opposition with God.

When Adam and Eve lost Original Justice, they lost the condition of friendship with God and could no longer pass it down. Man now had to earn that condition by making a conscious effort to turn to God.

However, even in this condition, Scripture says that men existed who did not sin:
Romans 5 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

This takes care of condition #2. If men have existed who did not commit sin as Adam had done, then it is consistent with Scripture that Mary could as well.

But how about Original Sin, was Mary born in a condition of opposition to God? According to the Protoevangelium, the first Gospel, Jesus would be born of a woman and that woman would be the enemy of Satan.

Genesis 3 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Therefore, since God has always destined the mother of Jesus to be the enemy of Satan, we believe that she was born without original sin.

There is another verse which says that Mary is the Kecharitomene. Its kind of complicated, so I'll let you read it here:
The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28) (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Why did adam and eve sin? Didn't they have it perfect, so they
Could have just told satan where to go? It's because they were
Tempted by their own lust, pride, etc. that's why satan didn't
Shove the apple in their mouths, because he only had to entice
Their will. Same with mary, she was not born without this ability
To be enticed through her will.

It is not in the Bible. It is Tradition. Not unlike the doctrine of the Trinity: Not in the bible, but recognized as truth.

Rom 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(KJV)

Rom 5:12
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(KJV)

Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)

These verses certainly seem to be all-inclusive. For you to say that Mary was born different from everyone else has no basis in scripture or logic. Mary was also present on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given to the Churh, and she spoke with "tongues" as did the other believers present that day. She was a PENTECOSTAL!

I will ask the same question here that I asked in another thread. If you say you accept the Bible as the Word of God, then how can you also say that tradition or dogma is equal to the Bible? Did God say what He means? I submit that you can't have it both ways, because that becomes mutually contridictory.

Rom 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(KJV)

Rom 5:12
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(KJV)

Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)


Do you believe then, that every single person without exception has sinned? Have little children who died in the womb sinned?

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.




These verses certainly seem to be all-inclusive.

Do babies sin who die before the age of reason?


For you to say that Mary was born different from everyone else has no basis in scripture or logic. Mary was also present on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given to the Churh, and she spoke with "tongues" as did the other believers present that day. She was a PENTECOSTAL!

Pentecostals did not exist until the 1900's. Mary was the first Christian.


I will ask the same question here that I asked in another thread. If you say you accept the Bible as the Word of God, then how can you also say that tradition or dogma is equal to the Bible?

Because the Bible says so:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.


Did God say what He means? I submit that you can't have it both ways, because that becomes mutually contridictory.

We believe the entire Bible. We believe 2 Thess 2:14 just as strongly as we believe every other part of the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria

why did adam and eve sin? didn't they have it perfect, so they
could have just told satan where to go? it's because they were
tempted by their own lust, pride, etc. that's why satan didn't
shove the apple in their mouths, because he only had to entice
their will. same with mary, she was not born without this ability
to be enticed through her will.

Can you prove that Mary sinned?

Perhaps I can clarify my question. When dogma is contrary to scripture, which takes precedent?

All:
The doctrine of Immaculate Mary was first recognized by Pope Pius IX in his pronouncement:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Which was re-affirmed by Vatican II, finding Mary free from all guilt of original sin, (Cf. Rom. 8: 10-11) on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory,( Cf. 1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 19) and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully confirmed to her Son, the Lord of lords (Cf Apoc. 19: 16) and the conqueror of sin and death .( Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8: 15-16 and 26.) ." Lumen Gentium, 59

And

Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities.( Cf. Mk. 4: 26-29) Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: "All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me". (Lk. 1: 66)

How is this “contrary” to Scripture?

JoeT

It is not in the Bible. It is Tradition. Not unlike the doctrine of the Trinity: Not in the bible, but recognized as truth.

Recognized by some denominations.

I cannot prove that mary sinned. You cannot prove she did not sin. Only god knows. How can you tell if anyone you know has sinned or not? If you have never seen them sin, you might conclude they have never sinned, nor will ever. But in my own life, I have sinned, and the people I have been around have sinned. That's the whole reason jesus came to atone for, our sins. Mary had the holy spirit available to her. I hope god helped her walk closer to himself. What was available to her, is available to ourselves. May we hope to be as holy as you're saying mary was.

It is not in the Bible. It is Tradition. Not unlike the doctrine of the Trinity: Not in the bible, but recognized as truth.

Recognize this?

In Heaven
1 John 5: 6-7 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; [not by water only,] but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

On Earth
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Rom 11:32
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
(KJV)

Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)

This is what I am talking about. Dogma says Mary was not concluded under sin. Which will you believe?

Does your Bible say Mary ascended to Heaven? Mine doesn't. Again, do you believe Bible or dogma?

If Mary is not included in the "all" of unbelief above, then she cannot be included in the "all" receiving mercy.

Recognize this?

In Heaven
1 John 5: 6-7 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; [not by water only,] but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

On Earth
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Can you explain? I don't understand how these verses deal with Rick's comments

Genesis 3 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.


De Maria

Unknown as scripture as it is posted, DeMaria.. Where did you get this?

KJV God is talking to satan..

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

God is still talking to satan

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; [ it ] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Eve was beguiled by satan.. God will put enmity between satan and Eve, and between satan's seed and Eve's seed.. [It] meaning Eve's seed will bruise satan's head, and satan shalt only bruise His heel...


Proof of beguiled... There was no apple...

Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. KJV

II Corinthians11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

Who was satan's seed. The first murderer in the beginning, and why didn't God find favor in his fruits?

John 8:4 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Eve's seed would bring forth the generations to Abraham Isaac, Jacob.. on to the birth of Christ. thr the daughters of Aaron Levite Priest.. plus [the supposed father] of Jesus, Joseph.. This is the meaning of ( King of Kings, And Lord of Lords)

That is why Eve was called the mother of all living.. Because Christ would come thr the generations.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

This is not a debate.. This is Truth

If Mary is not included in the "all" of unbelief above, then she cannot be included in the "all" receiving mercy.
But why would Mary be included in “unbelief” when she was told by Gabriel that she would bear the Son of God?


JoeT

Can you explain? I don't understand how these verses deal with Rick's comments

These verses show the three in "One" Trinity is a word description of the three in One.

In Heaven
1 John 5: 6-7 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; [not by water only,] but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One.

On Earth
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in One.

These verses show the three in "One" Trinity is a word description of the three in One.

In Heaven
1 John 5: 6-7 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; [not by water only,] but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One.

On Earth
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in One.

So finish the thought…and this has to deal with …and it means…? If you make me put words in your mouth, you'll find yourself turning Catholic all of a sudden.

JoeT

So finish the thought…and this has to deal with …and it means…? If you make me put words in your mouth, you'll find yourself turning Catholic all of a sudden.

The Words in those scriptures posted are the Spirit of Truth which say all that is necessary. Read the scriptures. Who would man be to think he can or could say it better then what God, Himself has offered.

And I need not be anything other then a child of God who follows Christ Jesus.

Unknown as scripture as it is posted, DeMaria.. Where did you get this?

The Douay Rheims:
Douay-Rheims Bible, Book Of Genesis Chapter 3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=3&l=15&f=s#x)

KJV God is talking to satan..

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

God is still talking to satan

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; [ it ] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We consider this a prophecy of Mary and Jesus. God is telling Satan that He will be crushed.

Mary being the woman who bore a Son. Her seed. In the Douay version based on St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, Mary crushes Satan's head by giving birth to the Saviour.

In the other versions based on the Greek Septuagint, Mary gives birth to the Saviour and He crushes Satan's head.


Eve was beguiled by satan.. God will put enmity between satan and Eve, and between satan's seed and Eve's seed.. [It] meaning Eve's seed will bruise satan's head, and satan shalt only bruise His heel...

Eve had no seed of her own. It was Semitic custom to name the Father's seed. Only Mary is ever called the Woman with seed.



Proof of beguiled... There was no apple...

Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. KJV

II Corinthians11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

But Mary was not beguiled. And Jesus is her seed.


Who was satan's seed. The first murderer in the beginning, and why didn't God find favor in his fruits?

John 8:4 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Eve's seed would bring forth the generations to Abraham Isaac, Jacob.. on to the birth of Christ. thr the daughters of Aaron Levite Priest.. plus [the supposed father] of Jesus, Joseph.. This is the meaning of ( King of Kings, And Lord of Lords)

That is why Eve was called the mother of all living.. Because Christ would come thr the generations.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

This is not a debate.. This is Truth

But you forgot to mention Mary, who is the Mother of those who keep the Commandments of God:
Apocalypse 12 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

And the Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ:
Luke 1 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

And He just happens to be God:
Luke 1 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

Sincerely,

De Maria

These verses show the three in "One" Trinity is a word description of the three in One.
In Heaven
1 John 5: 6-7 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; [not by water only,] but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One.
On Earth
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in One.

The Words in those scriptures posted are the Spirit of Truth which say all that is necessary. Read the scriptures. Who would man be to think he can or could say it better then what God, Himself has offered.
And I need not be anything other then a child of God who follows Christ Jesus.

All seriousness aside: I interpret the use of these scriptures to mean:

• 1 John 5:6-7: Christ came by blood and water [the blood he shared with his mother in the womb and the embryonic waters of his mother’s womb]. The Spirit breathed life into him [he was conceived by the Holy Spirit]. All of which was witnessed by the Holy Trinity.
• 1 John 5:8: Considering the preceding verse this means the Trinity recorded this event and revealed them to Peter.

That wasn’t so hard after all. Is this what you mean by the Scriptures are all that is necessary?

Seriously, wouldn’t clear communication be made better by stating your beliefs and support them with Scripture?

JoeT.

i cannot prove that mary sinned.

I can - she said that she needed a Saviour.

Wisdom is The Father of Truth, give ear to wisdom.

Proverbs 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

Proverbs 8:14 The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Due 32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.

Twisting of scripture ( watch for it )

Warning of satan followers, full of pride which God hates (proverbs 8:14)

Deu 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

This is talking about satan followers, they twist scripture (perverse) just as satan exampled in his tempting with Christ..Matthew 4... Watch for twisting or perversed scripture in these postings.


1 Timothy 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Door Closed withdraw

But why would Mary be included in “unbelief” when she was told by Gabriel that she would bear the Son of God?


JoeT
Let's go at this from a different perspective. It is obvious that you believe that Mary was perfect, without sin. How did she attain to this? If you say immaculate conception, then EVERY mother back to Eve would have to be able to so conceive, but we know Eve could not. (Do you know that there is a harlot in Mary's ancestry?) If you say that Mary was righteous by her own efforts, then you destroy the need for a Saviour. If one human can be sinless by their own efforts, then anyone can be sinless by their own works. You know that is not possible. Either argument falls flat, whether you look at it from a Biblical view or from reason.

Face it. Mary was a virtuous girl who kept the Law as well as she could. She was honored by God's selection of her to be the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. She was conceived just like everyone else, and born the same. She was there with the rest of the obedient believers when the Holy Ghost was given to the Church, and she spoke with "tongues" like the rest of them.

I certainly honor and respect Mary. I'm just not accepting any "immaculate conception" or bodily assumption for Mary. She will be resurrected and rise with the rest of those who died in faith.

I can - she said that she needed a Saviour.

Correction. She said that God was her Saviour. Past tense.

Luke 1 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Let's go at this from a different perspective. It is obvious that you believe that Mary was perfect, without sin. How did she attain to this? If you say immaculate conception, then EVERY mother back to Eve would have to be able to so concieve, but we know Eve could not. (Do you know that there is a harlot in Mary's ancestry?) If you say that Mary was righteous by her own efforts, then you destroy the need for a Saviour. If one human can be sinless by their own efforts, then anyone can be sinless by their own works. You know that is not possible. Either argument falls flat, whether you look at it from a Biblical view or from reason.

Face it. Mary was a virtuous girl who kept the Law as well as she could. She was honored by God's selection of her to be the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. She was concieved just like everyone else, and born the same. She was there with the rest of the obedient believers when the Holy Ghost was given to the Church, and she spoke with "tongues" like the rest of them.

I certainly honor and respect Mary. I'm just not accepting any "immaculate conception" or bodily assumption for Mary. She will be resurrected and rise with the rest of those who died in faith.

Who said that she attained to this by her own efforts?

Who said that she attained to this by her own efforts?

Please explain. Are you saying that there is one way to salvation for Mary and another for the rest of us? No one was justified by the Law, and that is what everyone lived under until the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore Mary could not have been justified under the Law.

Let's go at this from a different perspective. It is obvious that you believe that Mary was perfect, without sin.
"By a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ" she is protected from sin. She was “full” of grace. Like a container, every void was filled with grace.

How did she attain to this?
It was a grace from God.

If you say immaculate conception, then EVERY mother back to Eve would have to be able to so conceived,
That's illogical. How if one person, of their own will, decides to become the Lord's handmaiden, then all would be Eve? While I would agree that Mary was the “new” Eve, I don't think I mentioned it. I thought it might be too complicated to explain in this format. Why do you bring it up here?

but we know Eve could not. (Do you know that there is a harlot in Mary's ancestry?)
What's being suggested here? If this is headed where I think it is, you can save your insults.

If you say that Mary was righteous by her own efforts,
You're letting your Protestant raising show through. Who said she was righteous of her own volition? It has never been suggested.

then you destroy the need for a Savior.
Did it ever occur to you that if Christ wasn't born of Mary, then we wouldn't have had a Savior.


If one human can be sinless by their own efforts, then anyone can be sinless by their own works. You know that is not possible. Either argument falls flat, whether you look at it from a Biblical view or from reason.

These concepts were never offered as evidence of the truth; so yes it falls flat, but only because you've misstated elemental concepts in the debate.


Face it. Mary was a virtuous girl who kept the Law as well as she could. She was honored by God's selection of her to be the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. She was conceived just like everyone else, and born the same. She was there with the rest of the obedient believers when the Holy Ghost was given to the Church, and she spoke with "tongues" like the rest of them.
This is what I face:

" [I] the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

I certainly honor and respect Mary.
Good.

JoeT

If Mary was not born with original Sin why did she have to die then? As God said the wages of sin is Death, Mary lived 9 years more after Jesus was Crucified then died. So she had to Die like everyone else, I can only assume she is also one of adam and Eve's seed just like we are. Its just that, she was a virgin when she was engaged to Joseph, so she was without " Sexual Sin " and was conceived by the holy spirit and gave birth to Jesus Christ.

Correction. She said that God was her Saviour. Past tense.

Luke 1 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

First - where do you see past tense? My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour also - are you saying that I also am born without sin?

If Mary was not born with original Sin why did she have to die then ?? As God said the wages of sin is Death, Mary lived 9 years more after Jesus was Crucified then died. So she had to Die like everyone else, i can only assume she is also one of adam and Eve's seed just like we are. Its just that, she was a virgin when she was engaged to Joseph, so she was without " Sexual Sin " and was conceived by the holy spirit and gave birth to Jesus Christ.

See if the following response helps explain:

Eve…”having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.” St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 22

And remembering that salvation includes being risen, body and soul, into heaven we see why many believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

Irenaeus goes on to say,”… also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith.” St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 22, 4

St. Jerome adds that, “In those days, as I have said, the virtue of continence was found only in men: Eve still continued to travail with children. But now that a virgin has conceived (Isaiah 7:14) in the womb and has borne to us a child of which the prophet says that Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father, (Isaiah 9:6) now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary. And thus the gift of virginity has been bestowed most richly upon women, seeing that it has had its beginning from a woman. As soon as the Son of God set foot upon the earth, He formed for Himself a new household there; that, as He was adored by angels in heaven, angels might serve Him also on earth.” St. Jerome, Epistle 22, par. 21

In my opinion this best describes the new Eve. (Cf. CCC, 494)

JoeT

Eve…”having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.” St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 22

Interesting that scripture attributes the cause of salvation to Jesus, while you chose a quote attributing it to Mary


And remembering that salvation includes being risen, body and soul, into heaven we see why many believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

This is contrary to scripture. Where in scripture do we find anything remotely suggesting that Mary was assumed?


Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.

Again, scripture says that death came through Adam and life came through Jesus. I wonder why men try to replace Jesus with Mary.

Romans 5:14-19
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
NKJV

Do you know that there are even Bibles that change "he" to "she" in Genesis 3:15 to make it appear that it is Mary who crushes the head of Satan?

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV

Please explain. Are you saying that there is one way to salvation for Mary and another for the rest of us? No one was justified by the Law, and that is what everyone lived under until the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore Mary could not have been justified under the Law.

Mary was saved by Jesus sacrifice on the Cross. Just like every body else.

The only difference is that Jesus, in obedience to God the Father, honored His mother by permitting her justification before she was conceived.

This is a justification by GRACE. That is what kecharitomene means. Full of Grace from the beginning of her being.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The only difference is that Jesus, in obedience to God the Father, honored His mother by permitting her justification before she was conceived.
What is the Bible passage that supports this, please?

Interesting that scripture attributes the cause of salvation to Jesus, while you chose a quote attributing it to Mary

This is contrary to scripture. Where in scripture do we find anything remotely suggesting that Mary was assumed?

Again, scripture says that death came through Adam and life came through Jesus. I wonder why men try to replace Jesus with Mary.

Romans 5:14-19
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
NKJV

Do you know that there are even Bibles that change "he" to "she" in Genesis 3:15 to make it appear that it is Mary who crushes the head of Satan?

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV

That's because you don't have the "Offical Scriptures", the Vulgate which read as follows:

Gen 3:14, Et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem:

Quia fecisti hoc, maledictus es inter omnia animantia, et bestias terræ: super pectus tuum gradieris, et terram comedes cunctis diebus vitæ tuæ.
15 Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem,
et semen tuum et semen illius:
ipsa conteret caput tuum,
et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.

Translated by Douay as follows:

Gen 3:14, And the Lord God said to the serpent:

Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Obviously you don’t have an “official” bible. Check out the Council of Trent, I think its session 4; it lists the “official” bible and what books go into it.

Which Council was the KJV "made offical"?

JoeT

Interesting that scripture attributes the cause of salvation to Jesus, while you chose a quote attributing it to Mary

Its in Scripture:
Luke 1 38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Here Scripture is telling you that it is because of Mary's obedience to God's Word that Jesus was born to her. Jesus is our Savior. But without Mary's cooperation, He would not have been born.

Therefore, the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS interpreted Scripture to mean that both Jesus and Mary were the cause of Salvation. If Mary had said no, Jesus would not have been born and we would die in our sins.


This is contrary to scripture. Where in scripture do we find anything remotely suggesting that Mary was assumed?

Revelation 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:

And we find that this idea of assumption to heaven is not contrary to Scripture:
Enoch was assumed:
Genesis 5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

So was Elijah:
2 Kings 2:11
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.


Again, scripture says that death came through Adam and life came through Jesus. I wonder why men try to replace Jesus with Mary.

Who is trying to replace Jesus with Mary. We are simply obeying the Scripture which says:
Luke 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

So although you want to thumb your nose at the Mother of God, we note that even God sent an Angel to praise her:

Luke 1 26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

If God Himself finds Mary worthy of praise, why do you belittle her?

Romans 5:14-19
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,

even over those who had not sinned

according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam,....


Do you know that there are even Bibles that change "he" to "she" in Genesis 3:15 to make it appear that it is Mary who crushes the head of Satan?

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV

I believe that is based on the most ancient Bible known. St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

In either case, the logical ramification is the same. Either Mary crushed Satan by giving birth to Jesus. Or Jesus crushed Satan after being born of Mary.

Same difference.

Sincerely,

De Maria

What is the Bible passage that supports this, please?

Luke 1 26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

In Greek, Kecharitomene, she who is always graced.
The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28) (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

That's because you don't have the "Offical Scriptures", the Vulgate which read as follows

I not only have the official scriptures (they are not from your denomination!). And the official scripture are clear that it is is HE (Jesus) who crushes the head of Satan - both in the local context and if that is not enough - the gospel is clear that it is Jesus alone who defeated satan.

Its in Scripture:
Luke 1 38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Here Scripture is telling you that it is because of Mary's obedience to God's Word that Jesus was born to her.

I don't believe that you actually read this. It does not say that at all. And scripture does not contradict itself. The quote from Romans is explicit in gthat it is Jersus not Mary that brought about salvation through obedience.


Jesus is our Savior. But without Mary's cooperation, He would not have been born.

You have a low view of God. God would not have been stymied if Mary did not cooperate.

I not only have the official scriptures (they are not from your denomination!). And the official scripture are clear that it is is HE (Jesus) who crushes the head of Satan - both in the local context and if that is not enough - the gospel is clear that it is Jesus alone who defeated satan.

And the Gospel is clear that Jesus is born of Mary. And if Mary had not born Jesus, we would die in our sins.

I don't believe that you actually read this. It does not say that at all. And scripture does not contradict itself. The quote from Romans is explicit in gthat it is Jersus not Mary that brought about salvation through obedience.

And Scripture is clear that it is Mary who brought Jesus into the world.


You have a low view of God. God would not have been stymied if Mary did not cooperate.

Really? Prove it from Scripture. Who was second in line after Mary if Mary did not cooperate?

Perhaps I can clarify my question. When dogma is contrary to scripture, which takes precedent?

Catholic dogma is never contrary to Scripture.

Luke 1 26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

In Greek, Kecharitomene, she who is always graced.
The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28) (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

First, let's look at a beter translation:

Luke 1:28
And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"
NKJV

"Highly favoured" is a more accurate translation.

You need to get into the Greek yourself and not believe everything that you are told. Your translation is a way off. It does not even imply "always graced", and in fact that would make little sense. Indeed, this would be self-defeating for your argument since grace is "unmerited favour" which means that she did not merit the blessing she received - which would imply that she was not sinless. Further, your interpretation has wider implications, for example, we see the same references applied to others:

Romans 5:17
For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
NKJV

Further, your private interpretation contradicts Romans 3:23 directly.

And Scripture is clear that it is Mary who brought Jesus into the world.

So? That does not make her responsible for our salvation. Using that argument would make Adam and Eve responsible for our salvation.


Really? Prove it from Scripture. Who was second in line after Mary if Mary did not cooperate?

I am not God and neither are you so who would have been chosen instead of Mary is known only to God. But I do know from scripture that God is omnipotent - I hope that I do not need to prove that from scripture, because I trust that you know to deny that is a heresy.

Catholic dogma is never contrary to Scripture.

:p :D :p

the gospel is clear that it is Jesus alone who defeated satan.

The gospel is clear that the Messiah was born of Mary. Here’s something else interesting for you to ponder TJ.

Where did Moses keep the Old Covenant word; in the Ark of the Covenant, correct? Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.).

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1)

JoeT

Rom 11:32
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
(KJV)

This is talking about "all Jews". Read the context.

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. 29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

In other words, God concluded ALL THE JEWS in unbelief, so that He might have mercy on the Gentiles and the Jews.

Now, is this an all inclusive all which we are talking about? Were the Apostles Jews and were they concluded in unbelief? How about all the Jewish disciples, 5000 of them which were baptized in Acts alone? Were they all concluded in unbelief?

So, I would say that you are misreading this Scripture and wrongly attributing it to Mary.


Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)


ALL? Have all died in sin? But Scripture says that many didn't:
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

And Enoch and Elijah were assumed. So, did they die (i.e. conclude) in sin? No.

And if Mary believed as is confirmed by Scripture:
Luke 1 45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

And there is no evidence in Scripture that Mary ever sinned:
Luke 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Why do you insist that she did?

Have you not read in Scripture how God acts towards those who oppose the ones He loves?
Numbers 12 5And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. 6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?


This is what I am talking about. Dogma says Mary was not concluded under sin. Which will you believe?

Scripture doesn't say that Mary was concluded under sin. You are reading that into Scripture.


Does your Bible say Mary ascended to Heaven? Mine doesn't.

Does your Bible include Rev 12?
Revelation 12:1And 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:


Again, do you believe Bible or dogma?

Both. They teach the same thing.


If Mary is not included in the "all" of unbelief above, then she cannot be included in the "all" receiving mercy.

Sure she can. St. Paul was speaking of the Jews who had not converted and therefore did not believe. Scripture is clear that Mary believed (Luke 1 45).

Sincerely,

De Maria

The gospel is clear that the Messiah was born of Mary. Here's something else interesting for you to ponder TJ.

So?


Where did Moses keep the Old Covenant word; in the Ark of the Covenant, correct? Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.).

So?


Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Gen 11:19, Gen 12:1)

You have got to be kidding. Do you ever read your references?

Gen 11:19
After he begot Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.

Gen 12:1
NOW the LORD had said to Abram:
NKJV

"Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father's house,
To a land that I will show you.
NKJV

And then you give me the entire chapter of Luke 1 which says nothing of the sort.

So? That does not make her responsible for our salvation.

Not directly. But as she is the vehicle God used to bring His Son into the world for our salvation, then she certainly has something to do with our salvation.


Using that argument would make Adam and Eve responsible for our salvation.

That is why they are Saints. They did not kill themselves and they did repent of their sins. By bearing Seth, they became partially responsible for our salvation.


I am not God and neither are you so who would have been chosen instead of Mary is known only to God.

You claim to know that God would have chosen some other woman. Provide the evidence.


But I do know from scripture that God is omnipotent - I hope that I do not need to prove that from scripture, because I trust that you know to deny that is a heresy.

I know it very well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So?


So?


You have got to be kidding. Do you ever read your references?

Gen 11:19
After he begot Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.

Gen 12:1
NOW the LORD had said to Abram:
NKJV

"Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father's house,
To a land that I will show you.
NKJV

And then you give me the entire chapter of Luke 1 which says nothing of the sort.

OOPS!

I'm sure he meant:
Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.


Revelation 12 1And 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:

Sincerely,

De Maria

Again, let me say that I honor Mary for her contribution (willingness) to the PLAN; she is honored.

Catholic veneration of Mary is not supported even by Jesus Himself.

Matt 12:47-50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

Do you accept this that Jesus said? Every woman who does the will of the Father is Jesus' mother, and every man that does the will of the Father is His brother.

OOPS!

I'm sure he meant:
Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.


Revelation 12 1And 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:

Sincerely,

De Maria


Yeah! OOPS!

Again, let me say that I honor Mary for her contribution (willingness) to the PLAN; she is honored.
Catholic veneration of Mary is not supported even by Jesus Himself.
Matt 12:47-50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)
Do you accept this that Jesus said? Every woman who does the will of the Father is Jesus' mother, and every man that does the will of the Father is His brother.

Christ was in the middle of his ministry. That same day he had worked miracles, cast out sprits, and confronted the Pharisees. Even in the next chapter, on the same day he gave the parable of the sower and the seed, cokle of the field. He had set about to do God's work. His mother's approach was an interruption. He used this interruption to teach his disciples that God's work was paramount, and that worldly matters could wait.

Now how many times has your mother interrupted you at the office just to talk? If you were busy, wasn't the response, I'll call you later I'm busy right now (or something to that effect)? Does this mean you disrespect your Mother?

See also St. Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matt. XII (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm)

This doesn't show that Christ himself didn't honor his Mother. And wouldn't you think it strange, not withstanding this debate, if it did?

JoeT

Christ was in the middle of his ministry. That same day he had worked miracles, cast out sprits, and confronted the Pharisees. Even in the next chapter, on the same day he gave the parable of the sower and the seed, cokle of the field. He had set about to do God’s work. His mother’s approach was an interruption. He used this interruption to teach his disciples that God’s work was paramount, and that worldly matters could wait.

Now how many times has your mother interrupted you at the office just to talk? If you were busy, wasn’t the response, I’ll call you later I’m busy right now (or something to that effect)? Does this mean you disrespect your Mother?

This doesn’t show that Christ himself didn't honor his Mother. And wouldn’t you think it strange, not withstanding this debate, if it did?

JoeT

Oh Evil Doer... You have again perserved the Word of God. You have taken Our Father's Truth, and turned it into a lie.. REPENT

Oh son of satan.. Your mind has chosen to take The Lord Jesus Christ and make Him as a likeness to Yourself... Rebuke and REPENT for The Lord loves all


Fear The Lord
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

John 2:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

Oh Evil Doer... REPENT

I did, many, many years ago. That’s when I stopped being a pew warmer and became Catholic. And I continue to repent quite often at confession. I appreciate your concern for the disposition of my soul. But, I’m sure that wasn’t the intent here.

JoeT

P.S. But these things I say to you, that you might see the gates of God’s Kingdom on Earth.

Joe, I never said Jesus did not honor Mary.

But now you expose a real problem with Catholic dogma. In the verses concerning the Lord's Supper, you contend vigouiously for LITERAL INTERPRETATION, but in the verses I gave you above, you contend for sometlhing other than literal interpretion.

My view of Bible interpretation is this. Understand literally everything unless it is clear from the context and other passages that it should be undrestood as symbol or allegory.
The point about Jesus' words about His mother was not disrespect, but to prevent the very thing that Catholics now do, which is to elevate Mary to a position that God never intended for her. And I am convinced that Mary, in her humility, never wanted the veneration you now give her.

I have not posted these things to convince you, and you will not change my mind. I posted so that others may see that there are solid arguments against dogma. When the Catholic Church stands firm for scripture, we have no disagreement, as happens many times in these threads.

Be blessed, friend.

OOPS!

I'm sure he meant:
Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.


Revelation 12 1And 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:

Sincerely,

De Maria

This is the problem with copying and pasting answers - arcura has run into the same problem - when you do not do your own research and check out the verses, this is what happens.

These verses show the second problem - these verses say nothing about Mary being an ark. Not even the same topic.

Not directly. But as she is the vehicle God used to bring His Son into the world for our salvation, then she certainly has something to do with our salvation.

Your god is a very weak god. His prophetic decrees can be stopped by a mere human.

I posted so that others may see that there are solid arguments against dogma.

Here's what St. Chrysostom said:

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, While He yet talked to the people; as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?

His discourse to the people, for things that were of no importance. Whence it is clear, that nothing but vainglory led them to do this; which John too declares, by saying, Neither did His brethren believe in Him; John 7:5 and some sayings too of theirs he reports, full of great folly; telling us that they were for dragging Him to Jerusalem, for no other purpose, but that they themselves might reap glory from His miracles.


JoeT

This is the problem with copying and pasting answers - arcura has run into the same problem - when you do not do your own research and check out the verses, this is what happens.


These verses show the second problem - these verses say nothing about Mary being an ark. Not even the same topic.

But thank you for the opportunity to post it again. You don't have to read it the second time, because I know you read it the first time; being the only one not capable of seeing the mistake. However, this time I'll elaborate, I wouldn't want you to miss anything. That should make your day! The only problem you'll find with it is that it is the Truth of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The gospel is clear that the Messiah was born of Mary and that Moses was ordered by God to build a Tabernacle. It contained an outer court and inner court. See Ex 25-31 and Ex 39-40. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, called by God to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings, he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur along with Ooliab to construct the tabernacle.

From the outside moving inward we see a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east. You should immediately have images of “narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver.

In the inner court was the antechamber with Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread, behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant

Where did Moses keep the Old Covenant word; in the Ark of the Covenant, correct? Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.).

“So what,” you ask. Well, the Tabernacle was the birth place of the Jewish religion as well as our faith. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and to consummate a New Covenant. But Matthew doesn't stop quoting Christ with simply “filling”, “For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” Do these words of Matthew mean anything to the solo scripturist? It should mean that with Christ's life a new birth, a wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God's Kingdom on earth.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into Christ at the moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, who was man with God infused. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according to “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil. Christ becomes the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to raise as a pleasing scent to God.

Ultimately in his life he will be exposed to the 12 Apostles, who were like the “loaves of proposition” Unlike the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, these twelve were the only loaves that the Son of David, The Messiah, found within his temple. (Cf. 1 Sam 21:6). As you remember David went to the high priest Achimelech for bread. The only bread was the “proposition loaves.” These loves were unleavened, uncommon bread; the holy bread to be consumed for subsistence (metaphoric vision of the real presence in the Eucharist - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist )

The "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.), also called "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23). 'ártoi tês prothéseos, "loaves of the setting forth" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression "loaves of proposition", as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Exodus 35:13, etc.; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). The Protestant versions have "shewbread" The loaves of bread spoken of here formed the most important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Loaves of Proposition

In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) has been established for the first time. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stakes of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. The loaves were in the presence of God each time the curtain was lifted, hence the name presence-bread. And at the end of the appointed time, the loaves were consumed and replaced with new loaves. “And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, 21 Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses”

If we hold that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament then each and everything he did should be related to the temple. So, we see the 12 Apostles “in the presence of God;” the holiest of sacrifices in the temple; bread made of wheat sieved multiple times, i.e. separation of wheat and tars. I'm sure you can find other metaphoric comparisons to the Mosaic Law. It seems to me that an important image is that in Exodus 40 we see for the first time the tabernacle the 12 loaves were in the presence of God; and when He held the bread Christ said at the last supper “this is my body,” the twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread”. Matt 16 is the first time loaves (the Apostles) were in the proclaimed presence of God; “who do you say that I am.” These loaves were to be consumed by the people every time they preached; they nourish the masses with the body and blood of Christ. Still further, at the end of their time, new freshly baked loaves were replaced, with new loaves.

And just as the Jew was born in the Tabernacle, so was the Church of Jesus Christ was born in a Tabernacle, the womb of Mary. And when He hung on the Cross, he gave up the ghost with a loud cry. “ And the veil of the temple was rent in two, from the top to the bottom.” With his death was the beginning, the birth of the newly commissioned Church, built on Peter. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16 we see sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God. Only after Peter confessed was he open to the presence of God; who was Most Holy Sacrificial Lamb. When Christ says, “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” He is not only passing authority to Peter he is insuring that the bread will always be present. In my opinion, Matt 16 not only has Christ anointed Peter as the head of the Church, but we also see that the Presence Bread are replaced after their appointed time. Furthermore, having the Key, allows Peter to replenish the supply of loaves the appointed time in a manner pleasing the will of God.

The veil rent, the side was pierced and poured out blood and water, and the Church of Jesus Christ was born.

JoeT

Here’s what St. Chrysostom said:

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, While He yet talked to the people; as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?

His discourse to the people, for things that were of no importance. Whence it is clear, that nothing but vainglory led them to do this; which John too declares, by saying, Neither did His brethren believe in Him; John 7:5 and some sayings too of theirs he reports, full of great folly; telling us that they were for dragging Him to Jerusalem, for no other purpose, but that they themselves might reap glory from His miracles.


JoeT

So you accept this as valid? Interesting! Mary is here accused of doing something through vain glory and vanity! Do you read and think about what you post?

So you accept this as valid? Interesting! Mary is here accused of doing something through vain glory and vanity! Do you read and think about what you post?

That and more - See St. Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matt. XII (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm)

But thank you for the opportunity to post it again. You don't have to read it the second time, because I know you read it the first time;

It does not support your position any more the second time. Kind of like raising your voice in the hopes that you will be more convincing. If the content is not there, it won't help.

What does the Immaculate Conception mean and is it in the Bible?

The Immaculate Conception is the title by which we recognize that the Blessed Virgin Mary by a special grace of God was exempt of original sin. She announced herself with this title to Bernadette Soubiruous in the Apparitions of Lourdes in 1858.

The authenticity of these apparitions has been verified by the authority of the Church in view of the great number of miracles that have taken place in the Sanctuary of Lourdes.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined and proclaimed by Pope Pius IX on the 8th of December 1854.

We Catholics consider this definition as dogmatic.

We Catholics consider this definition as dogmatic.
We Protestants don't. And there's the rub...

The Immaculate Conception is the title by which we recognize that the Blessed Virgin Mary by a special grace of God was exempt of original sin. She announced herself with this title to Bernadette Soubiruous in the Apparitions of Lourdes in 1858.

The authenticity of these apparitions has been verified by the authority of the Church in view of the great number of miracles that have taken place in the Sanctuary of Lourdes.


Your denomination is wrong in this proclamation. Scripture condemns communication with the dead.

We Protestants don't. And there's the rub.........

There is the rub, as you say! But look at the big coincidence! We BOTH believe in GOD Father and in Jesus Christ, his Son who died in the Cross for all of us, whether Protestants or Catholics. Is not that wonderful?

The other "rub" is just a matter of discern! And, eventually, this difference of opinion should not prevent reaching the Kingdom provided we fulfill the 11 Commandments. Don't you think?
:) :)

Your denomination is wrong in this proclamation. Scripture condemns communication with the dead.

You are entitled to your own opinion. And I'm not going to dispute it. As well as you should not dispute my own right to believe just the contrary:)

You are entitled to your own opinion. And I'm not going to dispute it. As well as you should not dispute my own right to believe just the contrary:)

I respect your right to believe as you wish, but respecting one's right to believe as they wish does not mean that one cannot both disagree and challenge those beliefs. If you wish to post beliefs that are contrary to scripture, you should expect to be challenged.

I respect your right to believe as you wish, but respecting one's right to believe as they wish does not mean that one cannot both disagree and challenge those beliefs. If you wish to post beliefs that are contrary to scripture, you should expect to be challenged.

As I said before, I disagree with your belief that I'm posting opinions that are contrary to Scriptures. But I will not challenge this belief of yours because:

a) It is obvious and evident your confession is not Roman Catholic. Otherwise you would not say what you do.

b) I respect ALL Protestant denominations and I respect what they believe. But I will never accept that what one of them may believe is the absolute TRUTH while ALL the others are wrong.

c) I leave always room in any debate I may enter for the possibility that I might be wrong AS LON AS my opponent also accepts that possibility.

d) Since Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (b. 639 d. 25 May 709) who was thought to have written an Old English translation of the Psalms, there have been several hundreds of English translations of The Bible, disregarding the fact that The Bible has been translated into many other languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX), which later became the received text of the Old Testament in the church and the basis of its canon. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome was based upon the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the masoretic text), and on the Greek text for the rest. We Catholics are now following the Nova Vulgata o Neovulgata, which is based in "The Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti Quinti Pontificis Maximi" .

e) It would be a pointless effort trying to challenge someone who is adamant to accept any other possibility than his own opinion.

As I said before, I disagree with your belief that I'm posting opinions that are contrary to Scriptures. But I will not challenge this belief of yours because:

a) It is obvious and evident your confession is not Roman Catholic. Otherwise you would not say what you do.

My confession is Christian - not that of any denomination.


b) I respect ALL Protestant denominations and I respect what they believe. But I will never accept that what one of them may believe is the absolute TRUTH while ALL the others are wrong.

I am not protestant. I do not accept what ANY denomination says as being the standard of truth. I take God's word as the standard of truth.



c) I leave always room in any debate I may enter for the possibility that I might be wrong AS LON AS my opponent also accepts that possibility.

I personally stop before the "as long as". My willingness to submit my beliefs to the word of God does not depend upon what anyone else may do.


d) Since Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (b. 639 d. 25 May 709) who was thought to have written an Old English translation of the Psalms, there have been several hundreds of English translations of The Bible, disregarding the fact that The Bible has been translated into many other languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX), which later became the received text of the Old Testament in the church and the basis of its canon. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome was based upon the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the masoretic text), and on the Greek text for the rest. We Catholics are now following the Nova Vulgata o Neovulgata, which is based in "The Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti Quinti Pontificis Maximi" .

Again, that is the position of your denomination. I do not believe in denominationalism.


e) It would be a pointless effort trying to challenge someone who is adamant to accept any other possibility than his own opinion.

Or indeed someone who is who is adamant to accept any other possibility than the teachings of his own denomination.

This is the problem with copying and pasting answers - arcura has run into the same problem - when you do not do your own research and check out the verses, this is what happens.

These verses show the second problem - these verses say nothing about Mary being an ark. Not even the same topic.

These verses show that Mary is the archetype of the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant foreshadowed Mary.

Hebrews 9 4 Having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament.

All of which are types of Jesus Christ.

The manna is the Bread of Heaven.
The Rod of Aaron is a symbol of Priesthood.
The Testament on the Tablets is the Word of God.

In addition, the Ark was overshadowed by the Shekinah Cloud:
Leviticus 16 2 And he commanded him, saying, Speak to Aaron thy brother, that he enter not at all into the sanctuary, which is within the veil before the propitiatory, with which the ark is covered, lest he die, (for I will appear in a cloud over the oracle,)

Therefore, Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant not made by human hands.

Sincerely,

De Maria

These verses show that Mary is the archetype of the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant foreshadowed Mary.

You keep saying this, but I have yet to see any compelling argument.


Hebrews 9 4 Having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament.

All of which are types of Jesus Christ.

The manna is the Bread of Heaven.
The Rod of Aaron is a symbol of Priesthood.
The Testament on the Tablets is the Word of God.

In addition, the Ark was overshadowed by the Shekinah Cloud:
Leviticus 16 2 And he commanded him, saying, Speak to Aaron thy brother, that he enter not at all into the sanctuary, which is within the veil before the propitiatory, with which the ark is covered, lest he die, (for I will appear in a cloud over the oracle,)

I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Bible does not speak about Jesus.


Therefore, Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant not made by human hands.

But then with no apparent connection or reasoning, you jump to the conclusion above.

My confession is Christian - not that of any denomination.



I am not protestant. I do not accept what ANY denomination says as being the standard of truth. I take God's word as the standard of truth.



I personally stop before the "as long as". My willingness to submit my beliefs to the word of God does not depend upon what anyone else may do.



Again, that is the position of your denomination. I do not believe in denominationalism.



Or indeed someone who is who is adamant to accept any other possibility than the teachings of his own denomination.

Whatever you say! But I think I did say that I respect everybody's beliefs AS LONG AS THEY respect mine. Do not take me wrong but I would feel inclined to say that your own attitude reminds me of that of religious bigotry. You claim that you only abide by GOD's word, message and teachings. ALL Christians should do the same. I also try to do the same, though I do not always succeed. The differences among the different Christian denominations or faiths flow out of different interpretations of the Scriptures. I respect them ALL, inclusive of yours. But if you consider your interpretation is the ONLY RIGHT one leaving NO ROOM for some possible variation this sounds more like fundamentalism than anything else. Unless, of course, GOD have DIRECTLY TOLD YOU that you are right and the rest of the world that DO NOT believe exactly what you do, is wrong...

You claim that you only abide by GOD's word, message and teachings. ALL Christians should do the same. I also try to do the same, though I do not always succeed.
Don't you also include in your beliefs doctrines that have come about through the authority of the Catholic Church? That is an addition to belief in only God's word.

Don't you also include in your beliefs doctrines that have come about through the authority of the Catholic Church? That is an addition to belief in only God's word.

Basically, for Roman Catholics it is only mandatory to accept what the Church has declared "DOGMAS". As for the rest we have a certain leeway although, in principle, the Roman Church should not be spreading any doctrine that is NOT BASED on Jesus' WORD.

I have the feeling that to properly answer your question it would be better if you would point out one of those doctrines that supposedly are dictated by the Church and are AGAINST the Law of GOD. Just one, will have me fully understand what you mean!

Whatever you say! But I think I did say that I respect everybody's beliefs AS LONG AS THEY respect mine.

Why does your behaviour depend upon what someone else does? Does right behaviour change because someone else doesn't do what you think that they should? I do not respect everyone else's beliefs. I have no respect whatsoever for the beliefs of the white supremacists cults. I have no respect whatsoever of other abusive cult beliefs. God certainly does not respect false beliefs.

Lev 20:5
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
KJV

Gal 1:6-9
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
NKJV

And yet God loved the people so much that He came to earth manifest in the flesh to die on the cross for their sins. He did not respect the beliefs, but He loved the people. Do you profess to be a follower of God? Why do you not strive to have that same type of love?

What we are to respect is the rights of others, and to respect others realizing that Jesus died on the cross for those people. We can disagree, dislike or even be repulsed at beliefs of others, but that should not affect how we treat others, as you suggest.


Do not take me wrong but I would feel inclined to say that your own attitude reminds me of that of religious bigotry.

See this is the problem. When you demand that others respect your beliefs, you mean that they must agree. And if they don't agree, you get into personal attacks against the person, thus showing neither respect for the person, their beliefs or their right to hold their beliefs.

Ever heard that you should do undo others as you would have do unto you?


The differences among the different Christian denominations or faiths flow out of different interpretations of the Scriptures.

Sometimes, but more often than not, the differences are not doctrinal. You should do a study of how various denominations arose including yours.


I respect them ALL, inclusive of yours.

No you don't. You have not even cared enough to find out what I believe or the fact that I have no denomination, even after I told you once again in my last post. Further, you call my beliefs bigotry - that is your idea of respect?


But if you consider your interpretation is the ONLY RIGHT one leaving NO ROOM for some possible variation this sounds more like fundamentalism than anything else.

And then you show "respect" by lying about what I believe? Anyone who have read anything that I have posted on here about interpretation or read my website knows that I encourage people to go check out what I say by getting into God's word. I often tell people, on here, and when I speak in public, not to believe what I say because I say it, but to feel free to check it out and to challenge me.

When we challenge you, you call us bigots.

See the difference?

I have the feeling that to properly answer your question it would be better if you would point out one of those doctrines that supposedly are dictated by the Church and are AGAINST the Law of GOD. Just one, will have me fully understand what you mean!
That's been done time and time again here [and, to clarify your sentence]--doctrines held by the Catholic Church that are against the teachings of the Bible. One is that Mary was sinless. Another is that she was a perpetual virgin. Another is that she ascended bodily into heaven. Another is that Peter was the first pope. Another is that priests cannot marry.

Why does your behaviour depend upon what someone else does? Does right behaviour change because someone else doesn't do what you think that they should? I do not respect everyone else's beliefs. I have no respect whatsoever for the beliefs of the white supremacists cults. I have no respect whatsoever of other abusive cult beliefs. God certainly does not respect false beliefs.

My behavior DOES not depend upon what someone els does. Yours does! I said I respect everybody else’s beliefs. You don’t. I try my best to love my neighbor. You claim you DON’T. I never suggested that the beliefs of others makes me dislike them. However, I would expect at least being also respected and not disliked.
“You hypocrite, 3 remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye” (Matt. 7:5)

And yet God loved the people so much that He came to earth manifest in the flesh to die on the cross for their sins. He did not respect the beliefs, but He loved the people. Do you profess to be a follower of God? Why do you not strive to have that same type of love?

What we are to respect is the rights of others, and to respect others realizing that Jesus died on the cross for those people. We can disagree, dislike or even be repulsed at beliefs of others, but that should not affect how we treat others, as you suggest.


[See this is the problem. When you demand that others respect your beliefs, you mean that they must agree. And if they don't agree, you get into personal attacks against the person, thus showing neither respect for the person, their beliefs or their right to hold their beliefs.

Ever heard that you should do undo others as you would have do unto you?

B]Demanding respect for one’s opinion DOES NOT imply accepting or agreeing with them. I respect your opinion THOUGH I DO NOT accept it. You are entitled to to your own beliefs as I am to mine.
But you DO NOT respect (as you have just said) anybody else’s opinion.
And I am not personally attacking you. I’m just saying that your attitude reminds me of what we call bigotry. Bigotry is synonym of intolerance. Intolerance is synonym of disrespect. While I say I respect your opinion you say you DO NOT respect mine. How would you call that attitude in English?

Ever heard of “"Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)[/B]



Sometimes, but more often than not, the differences are not doctrinal. You should do a study of how various denominations arose including yours.


If they are not doctrinal they are not important. Close to 2 billion Protestants and Catholics consider and belief their denominations arose from Jesus Christ. Where did yours arise from?

No you don't. You have not even cared enough to find out what I believe or the fact that I have no denomination, even after I told you once again in my last post. Further, you call my beliefs bigotry - that is your idea of respect?


Yes, I do. I’m not under the obligation to investigate what other people believe if I accept their right to believe what they want. I DO NOT even say that you are wrong. But I expect reciprocity from you, which you are not willing to grant. I DIDN’T call your beliefs bigotry. I referred to your attitude. According to the dictionary “A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind.
And this is what you have proclaimed yourself, when you say "I have no respect whatsoever for the beliefs of the white supremacists cults. I have no respect whatsoever of other abusive cult beliefs."

And then you show "respect" by lying about what I believe? Anyone who have read anything that I have posted on here about interpretation or read my website knows that I encourage people to go check out what I say by getting into God's word. I often tell people, on here, and when I speak in public, not to believe what I say because I say it, but to feel free to check it out and to challenge me.

When we challenge you, you call us bigots.

See the difference?

You seem to like to put words in others lips that they have not said.
I don’t think I’m lying about anything.
I say that IF YOU CONSIDER (this is a supposition not an assert) that your interpretation is the ONLY RIGHT ONE (you have said that yourself, not me), so I’m not lying, I’m ONLY supposing you would do that. If you claim, now, you don’t, that’s find with me.
out and to challenge me.
I do not see any need to challenge you or, as I said before, to investigate your denomination as I’m satisfied with my own beliefs, which as I pointed out before, are endorsed by close to 2 billion people all over the world.
To tell you the truth, if I’m to investigate other religions, out of curiosity, I prefer to concentrate upon those that are not Christian. You believe in Jesus Christ and so do I? What else is there to investigate?

:) :)

__________________

[B][I]You seem to like to put words in others lips that they have not said.
I don't think I'm lying about anything.

Well, let's see about that, because you came out with more in the very same post. We will see that in just a moment


I said I respect everybody else's beliefs. You don't.

That is right - While I respect the rights of all to believe what they wish, I do not respect beliefs which are abusive.


I try my best to love my neighbor. You claim you DON'T.

TAKE NOTE: HERE IS WHERE YOU LIE ONCE AGAIN. I never said anything of the sort - indeed I said the exact opposite.

BTW, One reason that I do not respect abusive beliefs is because of the love that I have for others. God's words in hating false beliefs goes much further than what I said.


Yes, I do. I'm not under the obligation to investigate what other people believe if I accept their right to believe what they want.

Judging by the way that you mis-represented and lied about what I believe and said, it appears that investigation is not the issue - it is simply a matter of honesty. You did not have to investigate anything. I said it outright, and then you posted a claim that I said the exact opposite.


And this is what you have proclaimed yourself, when you say "I have no respect whatsoever for the beliefs of the white supremacists cults. I have no respect whatsoever of other abusive cult beliefs."

And are you saying that you DO respect abusive and hateful beliefs? Wow! Quite an admission.

That is right - While I respect the rights of all to believe what they wish, I do not respect beliefs which are abusive.

They are abusive ALWAYS according to your OWN prejudged opinion. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DECIDE what is abusive and what is not



TAKE NOTE: HERE IS WHERE YOU LIE ONCE AGAIN. I never said anything of the sort - indeed I said the exact opposite.

BTW, One reason that I do not respect abusive beliefs is because of the love that I have for others. God's words in hating false beliefs goes much further than what I said.

Funny reasoning. You who claim to be closely following Jesus Christ example, do you remember HIS WORDS in the Cross: "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

Judging by the way that you mis-represented and lied about what I believe and said, it appears that investigation is not the issue - it is simply a matter of honesty. You did not have to investigate anything. I said it outright, and then you posted a claim that I said the exact opposite.

No comment. Totally pointless.

And are you saying that you DO respect abusive and hateful beliefs? Wow! Quite an admission.

Positively No comment. Totally pointless.

That's been done time and time again here [and, to clarify your sentence]--doctrines held by the Catholic Church that are against the teachings of the Bible. One is that Mary was sinless. Another is that she was a perpetual virgin. Another is that she ascended bodily into heaven. Another is that Peter was the first pope. Another is that priests cannot marry.

[/B]Would you please point out the parts of the Bible where it is written that the Virgin Mary WAS NOT sinless, or that she WAS NOT a Virgin, or that she DID NOT ASCEND bodily into Heaven or that Peter WAS NOT TO BE the first Pope or that priests CAN MARRY. I ask you this because if the beliefs you mention are against the teachings of the Bible there MUST BE specific mentions to that effect in the Scriptures.[B]

[B]For instance, there must be some reference in theN.T. to the effect that St. Peter WAS NOT TO BE the first Pope.. [B]

[B]]But, even assuming that you may find these references -which I do not think you will- can you please tell me how on earth the above conceptual beliefs may change Jesus Christ' message to help us enter the Kingdom of GOD?[B].

Sorry to say, but it appears that this thread is degenerating as seems to be the norm.
So

>Thread Closed<