 |
And Scripture is clear that it is Mary who brought Jesus into the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Really? Prove it from Scripture. Who was second in line after Mary if Mary did not cooperate?Quote:
You have a low view of God. God would not have been stymied if Mary did not cooperate.
Catholic dogma is never contrary to Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
First, let's look at a beter translation:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.
So? That does not make her responsible for our salvation. Using that argument would make Adam and Eve responsible for our salvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.Quote:
Really? Prove it from Scripture. Who was second in line after Mary if Mary did not cooperate?
:p :D :pQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The gospel is clear that the Messiah was born of Mary. Here’s something else interesting for you to ponder TJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
This is talking about "all Jews". Read the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
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.
ALL? Have all died in sin? But Scripture says that many didn't:Quote:
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)
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?
Scripture doesn't say that Mary was concluded under sin. You are reading that into Scripture.Quote:
This is what I am talking about. Dogma says Mary was not concluded under sin. Which will you believe?
Does your Bible include Rev 12?Quote:
Does your Bible say Mary ascended to Heaven? Mine doesn't.
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:
Both. They teach the same thing.Quote:
Again, do you believe Bible or dogma?
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).Quote:
If Mary is not included in the "all" of unbelief above, then she cannot be included in the "all" receiving mercy.
Sincerely,
De Maria
So?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
So?Quote:
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.).
You have got to be kidding. Do you ever read your references?Quote:
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)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Using that argument would make Adam and Eve responsible for our salvation.
You claim to know that God would have chosen some other woman. Provide the evidence.Quote:
I am not God and neither are you so who would have been chosen instead of Mary is known only to God.
I know it very well.Quote:
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.
Sincerely,
De Maria
OOPS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Yeah! OOPS!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
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
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.. REPENTQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
These verses show the second problem - these verses say nothing about Mary being an ark. Not even the same topic.
Your god is a very weak god. His prophetic decrees can be stopped by a mere human.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Here's what St. Chrysostom said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
That and more - See St. Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matt. XIIQuote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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 Protestants don't. And there's the rub...Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
Your denomination is wrong in this proclamation. Scripture condemns communication with the dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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?
:) :)
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:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
My confession is Christian - not that of any denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
Again, that is the position of your denomination. I do not believe in denominationalism.Quote:
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" .
Or indeed someone who is who is adamant to accept any other possibility than the teachings of his own denomination.Quote:
e) It would be a pointless effort trying to challenge someone who is adamant to accept any other possibility than his own opinion.
These verses show that Mary is the archetype of the Ark. The Ark of the Covenant foreshadowed Mary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
You keep saying this, but I have yet to see any compelling argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Bible does not speak about Jesus.Quote:
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,)
But then with no apparent connection or reasoning, you jump to the conclusion above.Quote:
Therefore, Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant not made by human hands.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
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.
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.Quote:
Do not take me wrong but I would feel inclined to say that your own attitude reminds me of that of religious bigotry.
Ever heard that you should do undo others as you would have do unto you?
Sometimes, but more often than not, the differences are not doctrinal. You should do a study of how various denominations arose including yours.Quote:
The differences among the different Christian denominations or faiths flow out of different interpretations of the Scriptures.
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?Quote:
I respect them ALL, inclusive of yours.
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.Quote:
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.
When we challenge you, you call us bigots.
See the difference?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
You seem to like to put words in others lips that they have not said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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?
:) :)
__________________
Well, let's see about that, because you came out with more in the very same post. We will see that in just a momentQuote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
That is right - While I respect the rights of all to believe what they wish, I do not respect beliefs which are abusive.Quote:
I said I respect everybody else's beliefs. 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.Quote:
I try my best to love my neighbor. You claim you DON'T.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
And are you saying that you DO respect abusive and hateful beliefs? Wow! Quite an admission.Quote:
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."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 AM. |