A Fundamental Response to a Fundamentalist Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter TOME
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Why suppose that the mere presence of C(hristmass) T(ree)s must inevitably cause the bad passions described ?
From my personal experience, this being the 44 year that I’ve witness the christmass cycle, the symbolic representation of the christmas tree has never stimulated a conversation about the Resurrection. And that is what Believers in Jesus Christ are suppose to be doing, Preach the Gospel.
 
I’d like to thank everyone for this forum. I could never give a straight answer to the Immacualte Conception and Luke (one of the posters and the Gospel) said it wonderfully and simply.

The angel said, “Hail, full of grace”. To be “full of Grace” Mary could not have been born with sin.

Thank you!!
 
Also, Mary was a sinner. Only sinners need call on the Lord as Savior:
And where did you find this statement in the Bible, or did you make it up? I am extremely greatful for my dad. I know that without his strict loving care, I would have wound up following in the foosteps of some of my cousins and classmates and participated in quite a bit of illegal and immoral acts. However my dad prevented that by the way that he raised me. In other words he cared so much he saved me from sinning prior to me sinning. Again, I am extremely greatful to my dad for this. I am quite certain that without this loving intercession by my dad, I could easily be dead or in jail, but since my dad intervened, I am now the husband and father that I am. I will always let my dad know this and proclaim this to all that will listen. So I would definately disagree when you say that someone has been saved means that they have already committed the sin. We believe she was saved by God prior to her sinning, kind of like my dad did to me.
 
Also, Mary was a sinner. Only sinners need call on the Lord as Savior:
Could it just be, or are you as wise as the Lord, that it was God who preserved (saved) Mary from Sin in the first place? How can God (Christ) and sin co-exist in the same place? Christ in the womb, being fed by sin? Both Adam and Eve were conceived without sin, right? So, the god you worship is not strong enough to conceive of another human without sin? How weak is the god you worship?
 
. . . I could never give a straight answer to the Immacualte Conception and Luke (one of the posters and the Gospel) said it wonderfully and simply.

The angel said, “Hail, full of grace”. To be “full of Grace” Mary could not have been born with sin.
I get it that people put theology above the facts.

In the interest of ‘giving a straight answer’, the term ‘full of grace’ is not in the orginal greek text of Luke 1:28. It took nearly 2000 years before it was revised.
 
I get it that people put theology above the facts.

In the interest of ‘giving a straight answer’, the term ‘full of grace’ is not in the orginal greek text of Luke 1:28. It took nearly 2000 years before it was revised.
I disagree with your translation and especially with your statement that 'Full of Grace" was added in 1966! Greek has changed and is still changing, just as almost all other languages in current use. Latin has not. If you read the Douay-Rheims translation of the LV, you will see that “Full of Grace” is used. This translation of the Latin took place a couple years prior to the KJV.
 
It is not the literal tree that is evil. It is idolatry of the tree that is evil.

The decorating of the tree is nothing more than marketing that leads ones eyes to the stump, scanning for the presents with his or hers name on it.

Regardless of the mythological similes that Roman Catholics like to peg the Christmas tree to Christ, one metaphor that transcends time and space is the linkage of the tree to wanting more.

Having a tree, & decorating it =//= wanting more​

 
Please bear with me as I work through your list.

Jeremiah prophesied that because of Northern Israel’s apostasy that God was going to bring judgment against it and led Northern Israel into captivity. Bringing the tree (Baal worship) into the Temple is an abomination to God. It is mixing Truth with a lie. There are only two doctrines in the Bible. Jesus preached the doctrine of death to self (Luke 9:23). The devil preaches the doctrine of fulfill self (1 John 2:15-17). When you mix a clean thing with an unclean thing – you get dirty.

I did a thread on the 3 beast of Rev. 13 last summer that is related to this.

What possible relevance could either of them have to his work?

The Apostasy is here! Judgments coming. It is Jesus’ return, taking vengeance against His enemies, that should be the ‘reason for the season’.

I see what you’re saying, & thanks for explaining it - what I don’t see, is the relevance of this to Jeremiah 10.​

I seem to remember a long thread about this very subject, not long ago.
 
Could it just be, or are you as wise as the Lord, that it was God who preserved (saved) Mary from Sin in the first place? How can God (Christ) and sin co-exist in the same place? Christ in the womb, being fed by sin? Both Adam and Eve were conceived without sin, right? So, the god you worship is not strong enough to conceive of another human without sin? How weak is the god you worship?
The issue is not what God could do but did He do it in keeping Mary free from ever sinning. The Scriptures don’t attest to this but that she was a sinner like all men are.
 
The claim that Mary is a sinner was never thought of until well after the reformation. Even the reformers themselves NEVER taught that. God and sin cannot coexist. For God to fuse his Spirit with sinful flesh is a blasphemy against the Incarnation. It is a doctrine of demons. It demands that Jesus’ humanity (that he got from his mother) be divided from his divinity (that he got from the Father). This is a serious Christological heresy that the Church cleared up a long time ago. Mary gave birth to a Person, not a Half’n’half.

Reformers on Mary:
“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…”
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.
“Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”
John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.
“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
Bernard Leeming, “Protestants and Our Lady”, Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.” John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.
The teachings of the reformers on Mary’s sinlessness has been covered up with disastrous consequences and those buying in to this hideous invention have been sucked in to Nestorian falsehoods about who Jesus is. It is not even originally a Protestant concept, as I have demonstrated. It is an anti-Protestant anti-Christian heresy promoted by ignorant “ministers” with fake degrees leading many astray.
 
epostle;3098087]The claim that Mary is a sinner was never thought of until well after the reformation. Even the reformers themselves NEVER taught that. God and sin cannot coexist. For God to fuse his Spirit with sinful flesh is a blasphemy against the Incarnation.
Where are you getting this that “God and sin cannot coexist”? Jesus did not inherit any sin nature since He was conceived in a unique way by the Holy Spirit.
Secondly you run into the problem with Mary’s parents. If we follow your reasoning then that would mean her parents must have been sinless to. Do you want to say that also?
It is a doctrine of demons. It demands that Jesus’ humanity (that he got from his mother) be divided from his divinity (that he got from the Father). This is a serious Christological heresy that the Church cleared up a long time ago. Mary gave birth to a Person, not a Half’n’half.
i agree that Jesus got His humanity from Mary but that does not demand that she be sinless. If that were true how was it possible for Jesus to walk among sinful men and not be contaminated?

Reformers on Mary:
The teachings of the reformers on Mary’s sinlessness has been covered up with disastrous consequences and those buying in to this hideous invention have been sucked in to Nestorian falsehoods about who Jesus is. It is not even originally a Protestant concept, as I have demonstrated. It is an anti-Protestant anti-Christian heresy promoted by ignorant “ministers” with fake degrees leading many astray.
Forget these ministers and study the Scriptures. Thats where the answer lies and it shows clearly that Mary was a sinner.
 
The issue is not what God could do but did He do it in keeping Mary free from ever sinning. The Scriptures don’t attest to this but that she was a sinner like all men are.
So, when did you begin to believe in the man-made tradition that Mary sinned? It’s not in scripture.
 
Where are you getting this that “God and sin cannot coexist”? Jesus did not inherit any sin nature since He was conceived in a unique way by the Holy Spirit.
Secondly you run into the problem with Mary’s parents. If we follow your reasoning then that would mean her parents must have been sinless to. Do you want to say that also?
No. Contrary to some bigoted assertions, we do not believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is God, so there is no contradiction in saying her parents were sinners.
Forget these ministers and study the Scriptures.
That’s what Catholics said at the time and still say. So why do you ignore the Scriptures and choose to belong to the traditions which these men invented?
Thats where the answer lies and it shows clearly that Mary was a sinner.
Nonsense. No faithful translation of the Bible, nor indeed anything written by any Christian before the sixteenth century, ever said that the BVM was a sinner.
 
Where are you getting this that “God and sin cannot coexist”? Jesus did not inherit any sin nature since He was conceived in a unique way by the Holy Spirit.
JA4, the Lord seems to undo things in the opposite fashion in which they were done. Through disobedience (Adam/Eve) mankind fell so, through obedience (Mary/Jesus), mankind was restored to grace. OK so far? Peter denied Jesus three times, then by the shore, re-affirmed Christ three times (feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep). A pattern. Still OK?

Just as God took the perfect woman (Eve) from the perfect man (Adam), he reversed the condemnation of their sin by then taking the perfect man (Jesus’ human nature) from the perfect woman (Mary). God alone controls whether sin attaches at conception or not - we do not.

I do not expect you to accept or believe this in any fashion, but it explains the beliefs of the Catholic faithful. A pattern. God keeps the pattern because He cannot and does not change. He expects us to.

Christ’s peace, brother.
 

I see what you’re saying (regarding the 3 beast of Rev. 13), & thanks for explaining it - what I don’t see, is the relevance of this to Jeremiah 10 (and tree worship).​

I believe it is relevant because ‘thou shall not’ and trees lead to very bad endings.

1 Adam and Eve were told to not eat from the tree – they were exiled from the garden.

2 Elijah prophesied against Ahab and Jezebel for bringing tree worship into the temple – they died.

3 Jeremiah prophesied against tree worship in Northern Israel – they were overthrown and sent into captivity.

To review the 3 beast of Rev. 13 . . .

the 1st beast is an ‘it’, not a ‘him’; and that ‘it’ is the worshiping of self above God. The 2nd beast is false teachers that preach the message of fulfill self and that God loves everyone and that you don’t have to do anything to accept Christ.

Turning to the 3rd beast of Rev. 13 . . . .

Genesis 11:1,4 --The whole earth was of one language and one speech – they said let us build us a city and a tower and let us make us a name
  • language - Hebrew: sepheth - lip or- boundary line.
  • speech - Hebrew: dabar - arrangement; spoken commandment
city and tower - considered a sovereign kingdom with its own boundary and law (commandment/instruction) (called a mountain)
  • name - Hebrew: shem - authority; honor; fame
Genesis 2:16 17 – of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it.

Genesis 3:1,5 – The serpent was more subtil than any beast – (the serpent said) in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and “ye shalt be as gods” –

The sin of the harlot (self-worship) started with Eve and the original beast (the serpent). He ruled Eve and Adam by causing them to move the boundary of God (thou shalt) taking in forbidden boundary (thou shalt not). This established a new law of self-esteem (pride). Eve, the original harlot (idolator), rode upon the beast (serpent), polluting the people (Adam). After the flood, Nimrod reinstituted, at Babel (Babylon), the rebellion of Eden, setting up a new boundary (city and tower), and a new commandment (name or authority). Pride (let us make a name) is the foundation of “all” idolatry (spiritual harlotry) that has polluted the world for all time. It is the system of self-worship. (Repent means to turn from self to God). Babel began a series of “world order” beast (ruling) systems (Dan. 2:31-45; 7:3-7). These empires, (beasts) ruled all the civilized world and fell as one conquered the other (Babylon, Persia/Medes, Greece, Rome. etc). America has dispensed with icon (statue) worship and retained the “self-esteem” (pride) system of Rome/Babylon and is polluting the world with it. Babylon fell once as a literal empire never to rise again (Jer. 51:26). The second time she will fall as a wicked idolatrous religious system of “self-esteem” and “pride”. (Babylon is fallen, is fallen - Rev. 18:2).

I’ve attempted to clearly outline what the 3 beast of Revelation 13 look like – because Christians are commanded to be on alert for such signs.

I Thess. 5:2, 4, 6 – For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night – But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief. – Therefore let us not sleep (spiritually) as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
  • watch - Greek: gregoreuo - keep awake; stand alert or watch.
 
I believe it is relevant because ‘thou shall not’ and trees lead to very bad endings.

1 Adam and Eve were told to not eat from the tree – they were exiled from the garden.
Actually they were told they **could **eat from any of the numerous trees, except for one only. God did not say “trees are bad”. He gave them a command and they disobeyed it out of pride. And you’re forgetting the most important tree in the Bible - the tree of the Cross, from which came a very good, indeed perfect, ending.
 
Actually they were told they **could **eat from any of the numerous trees, except for one only. God did not say “trees are bad”. He gave them a command and they disobeyed it out of pride. And you’re forgetting the most important tree in the Bible - the tree of the Cross, from which came a very good, indeed perfect, ending.
This all apparently stems from a fear of a pine cone lodged in the throat?
 
. . . God did not say “trees are bad”. He gave them a command and they disobeyed it out of pride.
One more time . . . it is not the wood that is evil it is what it represents.

Devils Doctrine = lust of the eye + lust of the flesh + pride of life
And you’re forgetting the most important tree in the Bible - the tree of the Cross . . .
Crosses are made for dying on. Believers do that daily.

You can see the difference can’t you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top