A
Ag_not
Guest
…As Luther said to the Bishophey how’d you get that, I deleted it…
Sorry.
:nunchuk: Ag_not - 3:46pm - Strike Two - Silly Girl :nunchuk:
I cant believe Im nearly banned from my own thread under my own rules
Ag_nots Catholic Scriptural Challenge - just ONE proven example wins!!
- Status
Sorry.
:nunchuk: Ag_not - 3:46pm - Strike Two - Silly Girl :nunchuk:
I cant believe Im nearly banned from my own thread under my own rules
L
Luke65
Guest
You didn’t know many Protestants deny this obvious truth? Some of them actually attack Catholics for calling Mary “The Ark of the New Covenant”! And by the way, there are many other ways that God has shown us this in His Word - for all who seek the truth. And for those who do…
“Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it.” (Exodus 25:11)
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. [And a] great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” (Revelation 11:19 - 20:1 Note: NIV eliminates the word “And”, which obscures the connection between these two verses)
And so we see here, also, that Mary was “pure gold” both “inside” and “outside” - she did not need to be “refined like gold”, she was created that way! Just like the “old” Ark was, except that it took the merits of the Passion of The Christ for divine justice to permit this.
Also, notice that the old Ark had a “gold molding around it”, and the new Ark was “clothed with the sun”, which of course has a golden color! Also notice her crown - the Queen of Heaven! Love the truth, my Protestant brethren, it’s much more beautiful than the lie. :yup:
T
tassitus
Guest
B
benedictus2
Guest
Short, sweet, clear and terrific. Bravo!!!:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
N
notsmart
Guest
Then why do you think catholics do works because they fear hell and not simply obey God and wish to do things like Jesus exhorts us to? This is the reason I asked you if you could judge another man’s heart. I am aware its not biblical to do so. The reminder was for you.
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
I have just got in and am oiling the **nunchuks **
**Hi Ag_not**
**Glad you got here~**
Some of you, and you know who you are, are NOT respecting the rules of this thread.
I was going to mention that but I can see you have seen it for your self! Boy, some people!
Can we please keep focused on the original question - my non catholic brothers and sisters, I need to clarify something which I hope not to have to repeat:
Saying that The Immaculate Conception is NOT in the Bible, does NOT refute this dogma. You are asked to PROVE that this teaching is contrary to the Bible. To refocus, that is what I am asking you to do. Prove that there is one single teaching of the catholic church that contradicts the Bible. OK. Now, saying ALL have sinned, is NOT proving that the Immaculate Conception either. You are required to develop an arguement.
**But when they do argue, you get out the nunchuks. The ones who deserved it told me it hurt! The Immaculate Conception is proved by the real church! We told all the people who wish to be christians about it 150 years ago. I am guessing that if they heard they are ignoring the fact that mary Was conceived without sin. I mean they deny the Catholic church is tyhe only real church why wouldn’t they deny Jesus’ Mother her birth right? **
Imagine if you will, I say I am tall. Me saying I am tall does not prove it to someone a thousand miles reading this. I could then say yeah but Im of Roma stock and all Roma women a slim and tall. Therefor I must be tall. Well, no. It doesnt follow. I could have had a genetic throwback to when my ancestors were like 3 feet 6 inches tall
**I know that an analogy isn’t the same thing as being the same thing. So can I ask? Would that be like Protestants saying I AM a christian. Thet desn’t prove it to people who know that Jesus started his church 1,500 years before they even came around. And Jesus made one church not 621,000 denominations with 1,375 doctrines and beliefs! **
In your analogy if you were in OZ and all the people were munchkin and you were 3 foot 6 inches tal wouldn’t you be tall? Was there a witch of the south?
Im going to try and tidy this thread up a bit and keep the arguments easier to follow and discuss.
Good luck on that!
Hisalone - be warned now I am going to give you strike three - well, maybe 2.5 because I still want to hear you, for an earlier post I scanned, I just need to go back and find it.
Ag_not, Him and Martin777 are the only ones playing I know they are using the same old 5 protestant reformation solas tin an attempt to confuse you, but at elast they are playing! Could you make an exception and let Hisalone go to 5?
Now, while I do some reading, Hisalone, can you PLEASE respond to this and explain your understanding of All v. the generation of the righteous. Do you agree with the contextual understanding, or have you a different take on this.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4535856&postcount=254
I’m going to go back and find posts I think need to be addressed further or answered more clearly and hope you and Martin777 and others will elaborate more.
Any help yuo need just ask! That what I am here for to assist people who foolishly think they know what they are talking about. Oh, Ag_not did I ever tell you my favorite Bible verse of all time?
**2 Peter 2:16 **"… the dumb *** speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet."
**Are we all invited to your baptism?Can I be one of your sponsors? (God Father) **
**God Bless **
B
benedictus2
Guest
AAAhh Martin,
I am beginning to think you really do not want to learn.
I have read your responses to the questions and they are always slighly or greatly askew.
Chesterton’s response was very detailed so you cannot brush it of with “I studied Greek” for 3 years. That cuts no ice.
If you “studied Greek for 3 years” then surely you can prove that our interpretation of kecharitomene is wrong.
So address that point.
As someone (I think TQualey) already said, Mary is FULL OF GRACE. IF WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE AND MARY IS ALREADY FULL OF GRACE THEN SHE WAS ALREADY SAVED.
As I said before, we live in a space-time continuum but God is in ternity not in time. He made available to Mary the graces which came from Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Christ REDEEMED Mary but He did it prior to her conception, whereas with all of us, He redeemed us after the fact.
Think of it this way. Abraham, Moses and all the prophets prior to Christ were also redeemed by Christ. And yet one can ask, how can that be when Christ’s saving grace happenned hundreds of years after their death.
In Mary’s case, God did it prior to her even being conceived because He needed a fitting vessel for His Son.
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**Hi tqualey, **Sounds like bet to me!
Let’s make the wager clear: if the majority of posters agree that Adam and Eve were God’s perfect creation - in body and soul before they exercised their God-given free will and chose sin - then If the majority respond that Adam and Eve were not God’s perfect creation - in body and soul before the fall, then you just continue as you have been and I will drop out of the thread.
The operative Biblical section is Gen 2:7-25
You’re on.
God Bless!
**
**Tom you are correct Adam and Eve were perfect. God created them. There was no sin, so they had to be 'perfect" Even Martin 777 and Hisalone would not be foolish enough to insult God by saying different. That is so obvious.
** However on one thing you were wrong. The operative Bibical section is 2 Pete 2:16
And to have Hisalone answer questions or be quiet, would require a miracle! **
T
twb1621
Guest
God Bless you Agi… Have a real Christmas. It will bring a tear to your eye.…As Luther said to the Bishop
Sorry.
:nunchuk: Ag_not - 3:46pm - Strike Two - Silly Girl :nunchuk:
I cant believe Im nearly banned from my own thread under my own rules
B
benedictus2
Guest
Sweetheart, Re-read Luke on the annunciation.
When the angel addressed Mary as FULL OF GRACE, it was BEFORE SHE CONCEIVED JESUS.
The Angel addressed her as FULL OF GRACE, and then AFTER THAT SAID “Behold, you WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus”. . AT THE MOMENT OF ADDRESS MARY WAS NOT YET PREGNANT BUT WAS ALREADY FULL OF GRACE.
Who is blind then, HMMMM.?
Methinks with all that Bible worship you do not really know the Bible all that well, either.
And as to the point of “all sinned”. Your argument has been refuted, debunked, annihilated several times over.
Is that the best you can do? Keep going back to a point that has been rebutted and your subsequent counter rebuttal proved insufficient.
I think this is why you keep going back to name calling, etc. Because you have really lost all your ground.
B
benedictus2
Guest
**HOW SO? **CHESTERTONRULES;4539272:
Mary did not come short of the glory of God.*You crack me up!*
She was chosen by God to be his mother.
She was always full of grace.
What does FULL of grace mean?
Do you not realize that you have placed Mary on par with God.
Mary’s being FULL OF GRACE does not put her on par with God.
The BESTOWER OF GRACE IS ALWAYS GREATER THAN THE RECEIPIENT.
You really need to read the posts well before you reply and think your reply through before posting.
H
Henning
Guest
Hi Benedictus2,
…I think I know where we have a difference:
2 Corinthians 5:14 “…that if one died for all, then all were dead.”(DRB)
The meaning of ‘dead’ is where we differ.
I think the way you understand how I interpret this verse is that on the day that we physically die, we all, regardless of what Christ may or may not have done for us in our lives, will die in our sins. In this case the only destination, like you said, would be hell, the cross would be meaningless…I agree. And that if Christ saves us (with Baptism and holiness) then on the day we physically die we will not be dying in our sins. Again I totally agree with you here.
But wait…the way I’ve understood ‘dead’ in 5:14 is different. All humanity ‘was dead’, and again I’ll insert a word for emphasis, ‘was **already **dead’ before we were made alive in Christ. ‘Were **already **dead’ is the default condition we inherit from fallen Adam. We are conceived with a fallen nature, with original sin. We are born **already **dead in Adam’s sin (see Romans 5:12-17). Before Christ begins to save us we walk the planet as the living dead. Because of our physical life we may appear to be alive, but that doesn’t mean that we are alive in Christ.
I confess to being a neophyte at Catholic theology (I just recently started RCIA) but I’m pretty sure that the CC teaches that not all are alive spiritually in Christ…have to check the CCC. Therefore there are those that may appear living because of their physical life but yet be dead spiritually. This is how I understand ‘dead’ in 5:14. ‘All’ of course were/are physically alive but not all were/are spiritually alive in Christ. Again the verses like, Eph 2:1 “You **were dead **in your transgressions and sins” should make sense with respect to 2 Cor 5:14. So I can rewrite (for understanding purposes only) 5:14 as,
“…if one, Jesus, died for all humanity, therefore all humanity, while appearing physically alive, was already spiritually dead in sin”
-or-
“…all humanity was already spiritually dead in sin to begin with while appearing physically alive before Christ died for all.”
Then Christ died for all giving the opportunity for those who are spiritually dead to become alive in Him.
If this makes sense then there is still seems to be a problem with 2 Cor 5:14 and the Immaculate conception see post #46
AHHA !!…now were getting somewhere
…I think I know where we have a difference:2 Corinthians 5:14 “…that if one died for all, then all were dead.”(DRB)
The meaning of ‘dead’ is where we differ.
I think the way you understand how I interpret this verse is that on the day that we physically die, we all, regardless of what Christ may or may not have done for us in our lives, will die in our sins. In this case the only destination, like you said, would be hell, the cross would be meaningless…I agree. And that if Christ saves us (with Baptism and holiness) then on the day we physically die we will not be dying in our sins. Again I totally agree with you here.
But wait…the way I’ve understood ‘dead’ in 5:14 is different. All humanity ‘was dead’, and again I’ll insert a word for emphasis, ‘was **already **dead’ before we were made alive in Christ. ‘Were **already **dead’ is the default condition we inherit from fallen Adam. We are conceived with a fallen nature, with original sin. We are born **already **dead in Adam’s sin (see Romans 5:12-17). Before Christ begins to save us we walk the planet as the living dead. Because of our physical life we may appear to be alive, but that doesn’t mean that we are alive in Christ.
I confess to being a neophyte at Catholic theology (I just recently started RCIA) but I’m pretty sure that the CC teaches that not all are alive spiritually in Christ…have to check the CCC. Therefore there are those that may appear living because of their physical life but yet be dead spiritually. This is how I understand ‘dead’ in 5:14. ‘All’ of course were/are physically alive but not all were/are spiritually alive in Christ. Again the verses like, Eph 2:1 “You **were dead **in your transgressions and sins” should make sense with respect to 2 Cor 5:14. So I can rewrite (for understanding purposes only) 5:14 as,
“…if one, Jesus, died for all humanity, therefore all humanity, while appearing physically alive, was already spiritually dead in sin”
-or-
“…all humanity was already spiritually dead in sin to begin with while appearing physically alive before Christ died for all.”
Then Christ died for all giving the opportunity for those who are spiritually dead to become alive in Him.
If this makes sense then there is still seems to be a problem with 2 Cor 5:14 and the Immaculate conception see post #46
B
benedictus2
Guest
Martin, we do digest what you say. The thing is almost everything you have brought up, we have already digested several times over from other threads and from books.Well, I’m driven by a higher power than your pride!
The sum totallity of all Catholics in this thread would probably have come up against all your points as raised by other protestants in other threads, other forums and from books and debates.
So do not ever think we do not digest what you have written. It has been so well digested that all the nutritients have been completely assimilated where required and the muck all ready to be disposed.
We have digested it many times over previously. It would be like if you asked what 1 and 1 is. We would all jump in with 2. Now if you have proposed the equivalent of what is the square root of 25525698331.5 multiplied by pi to the power 365.
Well maybe, it will take us some time to answer that.
F
fbl9
Guest
Jesus saved Mary from sin at the time of her conception.she would no longer be “dead” but alive in Christ.thus she could not be included in the all have died then…Mary claims that Jesus is HER SAVIOR,before she has even given birth to Him…how could have He saved her when He was not yet born?Hi Benedictus2,
AHHA !!…now were getting somewhere
2 Corinthians 5:14 “…that if one died for all, then all were dead.”(DRB)
The meaning of ‘dead’ is where we differ.
I think the way you understand how I interpret this verse is that on the day that we physically die, we all, regardless of what Christ may or may not have done for us in our lives, will die in our sins. In this case the only destination, like you said, would be hell, the cross would be meaningless…I agree. And that if Christ saves us (with Baptism and holiness) then on the day we physically die we will not be dying in our sins. Again I totally agree with you here.
But wait…the way I’ve understood ‘dead’ in 5:14 is different. All humanity ‘was dead’, and again I’ll insert a word for emphasis, ‘was **already **dead’ before we were made alive in Christ. ‘Were **already **dead’ is the default condition we inherit from fallen Adam. We are conceived with a fallen nature, with original sin. We are born **already **dead in Adam’s sin (see Romans 5:12-17). Before Christ begins to save us we walk the planet as the living dead. Because of our physical life we may appear to be alive, but that doesn’t mean that we are alive in Christ.
I confess to being a neophyte at Catholic theology (I just recently started RCIA) but I’m pretty sure that the CC teaches that not all are alive spiritually in Christ…have to check the CCC. Therefore there are those that may appear living because of their physical life but yet be dead spiritually. This is how I understand ‘dead’ in 5:14. ‘All’ of course were/are physically alive but not all were/are spiritually alive in Christ. Again the verses like, Eph 2:1 “You **were dead **in your transgressions and sins” should make sense with respect to 2 Cor 5:14. So I can rewrite (for understanding purposes only) 5:14 as,
“…if one, Jesus, died for all humanity, therefore all humanity, while appearing physically alive, was already spiritually dead in sin”
-or-
“…all humanity was already spiritually dead in sin to begin with while appearing physically alive before Christ died for all.”
Then Christ died for all giving the opportunity for those who are spiritually dead to become alive in Him.
If this makes sense then there is still seems to be a problem with 2 Cor 5:14 and the Immaculate conception see post #46
H
Henning
Guest
So you are saying that there was a time that Mary was dead, dead in what, Adam…or…?
Yea that’s the way I sort of see it, but for me the problem is how that relates to 2 Corinthians 5:14 see post #46
I dunno
M
Matariel
Guest
Martin777 and Henning, or other protestants who may be here, I see none of you had anything to say about Post #529.
O
onenow1
Guest
Today, 5:39 pm
Henning
Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: inner
Posts: 337
Quote:fb19
Mary claims that Jesus is HER SAVIOR,before she has even given birth to Him…how could have He saved her when He was not yet born?
I dunno
Sure you do with God all things are possible . Peace onenow1
Henning
Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: inner
Posts: 337
Quote:fb19
Mary claims that Jesus is HER SAVIOR,before she has even given birth to Him…how could have He saved her when He was not yet born?
I dunno
Sure you do with God all things are possible .
Peace onenow1
H
Henning
Guest
AHHA !!! very GodSure you do with God all things are possible .
H
Henning
Guest
529 you say…OK, to check it out nowMartin777 and Henning, or other protestants who may be here, I see none of you had anything to say about Post #529.
B
benedictus2
Guest
To refocus:Hi Benedictus2,
AHHA !!…now were getting somewhere
2 Corinthians 5:14 “…that if one died for all, then all were dead.”(DRB)
The meaning of ‘dead’ is where we differ.
I think the way you understand how I interpret this verse is that on the day that we physically die, we all, regardless of what Christ may or may not have done for us in our lives, will die in our sins. In this case the only destination, like you said, would be hell, the cross would be meaningless…I agree. And that if Christ saves us (with Baptism and holiness) then on the day we physically die we will not be dying in our sins. Again I totally agree with you here.
But wait…the way I’ve understood ‘dead’ in 5:14 is different. All humanity ‘was dead’, and again I’ll insert a word for emphasis, ‘was **already **dead’ before we were made alive in Christ. ‘Were **already **dead’ is the default condition we inherit from fallen Adam. We are conceived with a fallen nature, with original sin. We are born **already **dead in Adam’s sin (see Romans 5:12-17). Before Christ begins to save us we walk the planet as the living dead. Because of our physical life we may appear to be alive, but that doesn’t mean that we are alive in Christ.
I confess to being a neophyte at Catholic theology (I just recently started RCIA) but I’m pretty sure that the CC teaches that not all are alive spiritually in Christ…have to check the CCC. Therefore there are those that may appear living because of their physical life but yet be dead spiritually. This is how I understand ‘dead’ in 5:14. ‘All’ of course were/are physically alive but not all were/are spiritually alive in Christ. Again the verses like, Eph 2:1 “You **were dead **in your transgressions and sins” should make sense with respect to 2 Cor 5:14. So I can rewrite (for understanding purposes only) 5:14 as,
“…if one, Jesus, died for all humanity, therefore all humanity, while appearing physically alive, was already spiritually dead in sin”
-or-
"…all humanity was already spiritually dead in sin to begin with while appearing physically alive before Christ died for all."Then Christ died for all giving the opportunity for those who are spiritually dead to become alive in Him.
If this makes sense then there is still seems to be a problem with 2 Cor 5:14 and the Immaculate conception see post #46
Getting back to your original post: you were trying to interpret the word “all have died”, that phrase. Not “all were dead”.
You correctly stated 2 Cor 5:14 the first time: "For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died. "
And then you said, it can only be either have died in sin or have died to sin. The point you raise was not about “all were dead”. And that is why I take issue with you trying to put your spin on this phrase because** that little change had enormous implication on the way you read that verse.**
The next verse goes :
"He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. "This following verse clarifies the previous. So if you have chosen “died to sin” you will have been closer to overall meaning of that whole Chapter.
Without his death on the Cross, all will remain in sin.
He died for us so that we will not life in selfishness, but in like sacrifice of our live. That we may live in LOVE.
Christ died for all so that all may die to sin to enable us to no longer live for ourselves.
You discounted this option of “to sin” citing las vegas. But Las Vegas does not negate this option because the graces of Christ’s redemption is still available to them. If you believe in baptism, those in Las Vegas who were baptised have also died to sin. As you mentioned above to “original sin”.
You are right, all were dead in Adam, that is as long as one is born into the human race, one has original sin. Only Christ’s life, death and resurrection brings the grace for our salvation.
Moving from “all have died” to “all were dead” does not validate your premise anymore than the “in sin” did.
But the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not say that Christ did not redeem Mary. Mary was still redeemed by Christ. Except that the grace of his death was made available to Mary prior to her conception.
I posted a reply to Hisalone just a few minutes ago, as a follow up to what Chesterton earlier posted regarding the passage on the annunciation. This makes for a clearer support of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception than 2 Cor 5.14 does as verse to negate the dogma.
As I said above, pulling this out on its own pulls it out of the context it was written.
- Status