[Galveston1]

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?

[JoeT777]

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

[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;

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.

[gromitt82]

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.

[Wondergirl]

We Catholics consider this definition as dogmatic.

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

[Tj3]

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.

[gromitt82]

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?
:) :)

[gromitt82]

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:)

[Tj3]

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.

[gromitt82]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[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.

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

[Tj3]

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.

[gromitt82]

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...

[Wondergirl]

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.

[gromitt82]

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!

[Tj3]

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?

[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!

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.

[gromitt82]

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?

:) :)

__________________

[Tj3]

[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.