Ag_nots Catholic Scriptural Challenge - just ONE proven example wins!!

[fbl9]

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

no iwas not saying that Mary was ever dead at any time… in the instance of her conception she was saved(perhaps this is the word that is causing the trouble)from the stain of original sin…by the Son…take note of the angel’s words in St.Luke’s writing1:30"…for thou hast found GRACE with God"the grace of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was applied to Mary at the time of her conception…we know that God is not limited by time as we are…
Mary knew Christ as her savior cause she recognized in her spirit that he had already saved her.

 

[benedictus2]

You are welcome to laugh, but my friend the cross accomplished so much more than you have yet to see!

We see what the Cross has accomplished. Salvation.
Since you say there is something the cross that has accomplised that we have yet to see (so implying you have seen) it is now your duty to enlighten us what it is that we are missing.

Full detailed explanation is necessary.

Waiting eagerly for your enlightening reply.

It provided a grace that is so scandalous it’s scary. And Paul knew it. He knew it was so great that it makes people think they can have a license to sin.

Aaah, now we come to it. It makes people think. Now only people who think it gives them a license to sin are those who understand it wrong. OSAS comes to mind.

Please ask God to show you if you have only seen a small part of the glorious grace provided at the cross.

Well it seems that God has put you here to show us the entirety of that grace. So please give us a full explanation of how that salvific grace works.

Again, waiting eagerly.

 

[benedictus2]

“if one, Jesus, died for all humanity, therefore all humanity, while appearing physically alive, was already spiritually dead in sin”

A tiny nitpicking of your re-phrasing. If Jesus died for ALL HUMANITY, and HE was part of HUMANITY being FULLY HUMAN, then He was also spiritually dead in sin? HE ALSO DIED FOR HIMSELF so was therefore REDEEMING HIMSELF?

Does that make sense to you?

As I said in another post, when you start saying ALL means ALL, then ALL means ALL.

This is what happens when you belabour a small verse and take it out of context. We can come up with all sort of ridiculous conclusions.

 

[benedictus2]

Not sure. I’m on my Blackberry right now. Can you take a look at my recent posts on 'Catholic Church Wrong Part Two and tell me what you think?

I didn’t know that TWB has started that thread as I suggested.

I have checked your posts and no you have not addressed them.

The questions are all very detailed.

So here it is again: Posts Number 169, 174, 175, 178. These are all in response to your earlier posts.

Would really like to get a reply even if you do only 169 and 174 this time around.

Thanks.

 

[benedictus2]

Do you have any idea what the glory of God means?

I have not read anyone’s reply to this, but do you know what the Glory of God means?

If so , kindly share it with us.

 

[notsmart]

A tiny nitpicking of your re-phrasing. If Jesus died for ALL HUMANITY, and HE was part of HUMANITY being FULLY HUMAN, then He was also spiritually dead in sin? HE ALSO DIED FOR HIMSELF so was therefore REDEEMING HIMSELF?

Does that make sense to you?

As I said in another post, when you start saying ALL means ALL, then ALL means ALL.

This is what happens when you belabour a small verse and take it out of context. We can come up with all sort of ridiculous conclusions.

Its the same conclusion the Nestorians had I think. Heresy.

 

[Cinette]

You didn’t know many Protestants deny this obvious truth? …

“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:

Thank you for this most enlightening posting. Now, the thread is getting better.

 

[benedictus2]

Paul says a man is justified by faith apart from ANY works of the law. You get a person SAVED, justified, and he will produce works that actually give pleasure to God.** He’s not interested in having people who do works because they are afraid He will send them to hell or’purgatory**. Faith is the one key that opens the door to everything else. That’s why Jesus said that.

Martin, please read the entire Chapter 2 of Gal and not just this verse.

The entire chapter is about whether to submit the Gentiles to the works of the law. Now which law is he talking about here? He is talking about the Torah, specifically circumcision.

He is saying that circumcision is not what saves but faith in Jesus because Jesus is the new covenant.

In the old covernant, circumcision is required. In fact, God required it of all who will be members of Israel even slaves of the household. But now we have a new covenant in Christ so we no longer have a need for circumcision and therefore this jewish practice must not be imposed on the gentiles. The new rite of passage into this household of God is baptism.

We do not do “works” to avoid hell or purgatory. We certainly would not want to go to hell and avoid purgatory if we can. If you come to comprehend what purgatory is like, I can tell you know, you will want to avoid that too.

But works of mercy and charity is in obedience to Christ who said “what ever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me”.

In the other person, we feed Christ, salve His wounds, clothe and house Him.

Mother Theresa said that it was easy for her to care for the other because she sees Christ in the other person.

And how do you know for a FACT that God is not interested in having people who do works because they are afraid He will send them to hell or’purgatory.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Realcatholicgk,

Ahhhhhh… the famous “…following the road of Balaam” section…:,eh? OK - I have noted it…

Tom you are correct Adam and Eve were perfect. God created them. There was no sin, so they had to be 'perfect"

I don’t know… I just sort of had a hunch…

Even Martin 777 and Hisalone would not be foolish enough to insult God by saying different. That is so obvious.

Now, let’s be honest: this is an assumption on your part - and not one necessarily grounded in fact. Look at all of their previous posts that have gone begging for responses and were either ignored or they decide to insult the poster or ask numerous unrelated and off-topic questions. There is **nothing obvious **with these two except an apparent desire to possibly hijack the list by failing to follow rules, ingoring legitimate discussion, coming very close to be insulting to the Mother of God, omitting references, and providing incomplete quotations (with the missing part naturally contradicting their position) Hmmmmmm should I go on…? No? OK

And to have Hisalone answer questions or be quiet, would require a miracle!

You mean, calling him on that wager - and, then having him ignore it. That was another disappointment. But, one thing is for sure… there is a distinct predictability to these actions. To employ a sport analogy … this is sort of like the receiver who makes a lot of noise but just can NOT catch the ball no matter who throws it. After a while, no one expects the guy to catch the ball…and, sure enough, they’e right. Sad.

OK… I really can’t give up on miracles… After all, look how far we all have come in the love of God!

God Bless

 

[benedictus2]

Thank you!
(like squeezing blood from a turnip)

You might have more success with a beetroot

 

[benedictus2]

Its the same conclusion the Nestorians had I think. Heresy.

Yes, their denial of Theotokos is NESTORIAN.

 

[notsmart]

Yes, their denial of Theotokos is NESTORIAN.

I guess the old ones like fashions for women, recycle every so often. Its a good thing the catholic church doesn’t fall for trendy rerun and repackaged for today theology.

 

[benedictus2]

**And to have Hisalone answer questions or be quiet, would require a miracle! **

And you don’t believe in miracles???

 

[benedictus2]

I guess the old ones like fashions for women, recycle every so often. Its a good thing the catholic church doesn’t fall for trendy rerun and repackaged for today theology.

(off topic)
Tell you what, if some of the renegades are allowed to take over trendy it will be . An Australian Catholic Priest denied the Divinity of Christ!!! (on topic)

NOTHING ON TOPIC.

 

[notsmart]

(off topic)
Tell you what, if some of the renegades are allowed to take over trendy it will be . An Australian Catholic Priest denied the Divinity of Christ!!! (on topic)

NOTHING ON TOPIC.

:stretcher:

I will be back when they check my vitals. If my family asks what happened to me, just tell everyone its Ben’s fault.

Satire aside, One mad man cant change truth. Millingo did not, this one wont either.

I will turn myself in to the mod. I am entirely off topic, and encouraging you.

Thank goodness the paramedics are here

Tell my child and husband I loved them very much

 

[Henning]

Hi Benedictus2
thanks for your replies

SIZE]
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
**

I checked these verbs just to make sure…
ὅτι εἰ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν (2Aor Act 3p Sg)
ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον (2Aor Act 3p Pl)

Both words for were dead/have died, ἀπέθανεν (apethanen) and ἀπέθανον (apethanon), are past-tense with an ‘e’/έ prefix, 2Aorist…verbs that have been completed in the past. Which can be rendered ‘have died’ or just ‘died’ or as the DRB and KJV put it ‘were dead’. Either of the three will work in this case.

.

 

[benedictus2]

:stretcher:

I will be back when they check my vitals. If my family asks what happened to me, just tell everyone its Ben’s fault.

Satire aside, One mad man cant change truth. Millingo did not, this one wont either.

I will turn myself in to the mod. I am entirely off topic, and encouraging you.

Thank goodness the paramedics are here

Tell my child and husband I loved them very much

:nunchuk:Officer, I swear I had no idea it would affect her like that. You’ve got to believe me!:blackeye:

 

[Luke65]

Thank you for this most enlightening posting. Now, the thread is getting better.

Thanks, Cinette, that discussion on “dead in sin”, or whatever, sure is getting boring! Of course, we commend our fellow Catholics for trying to teach a correct understanding of Scripture - and for their incredible patience and perseverance!

 

[Henning]

Sheesh. I thought protestants knew that Blessed Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant.

The Old Ark carried manna from Heaven. The New Ark carried the Bread of Life from Heaven. The Old Ark carried the symbols of the Law. The New Ark carried Grace Himself.

St. Luke further implies that Mary is the Anti-type of the Ark in the narrative of the visitation. Here, like the first two chapters of Luke in general, there is allusion to the hooks of Samuel; in this case it is 2 Samuel 6:2, where the Ark of God is being transferred to Jerusalem by King David. This comparison shows some of the parallel details of both narratives. (from R Laurentine)

2 Samuel 6:2 (David arose and went from Baal- Judah to bring up from there the Ark of God)

Luke 1:3 (Mary arose and went into the hill country to a city of Judah)

2 Samuel 6:9 (how can the Ark of the Lord come to me!)

Luke 1:43 (and why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?)

2 Samuel 6:11 (The Ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom three months.)

Luke 1:56 Mary remained with her (Elizabeth) about three months.

In both episodes the similarities are undeniable. Similarities of words in the Bible are not coincidences. There is a similar expression made by Elizabeth as by King David (although David’s expression is a result of holy fear because of the episode with Uzzah).
There is a manifestation of joy both with Elizabeth when John the Baptist leaped inber womb for joy and with King David and all the people as they danced with shouts of joy before the Ark (2 Sm.6:5,l5).
**One should note that the word which Luke uses to express Elizabeth’s loud acclamation (anaphonesen) is one which is used specifically for liturgical acclamations (1 Chr.16:45,42.) And especially for those which accompany the transfer of the Ark of YHWH (I Chr.l5:28, 2 Chr.5:13.) **

No, I never heard of this either. I always thought that the ark pointed to Christ. I’ll have to study this more (nice post BTW).

 

[SimonArizona]

The Catholic Church teaches that St. Mary was never stained with any sin