Catholicism Not really original

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReformationPlus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This does not need to be turned into a complexity and you know it. The poof is really your burden if you claim to be Christ’s church. Your teachings are not concurrent with scripture and so many of your dogmas are non-sensical and in many cases laughable. Prove that Mary was born without original sin and also prove that she entered into Heaven body and spirit. I will be waiting for your proof.
Mary, the Immaculate Mother of God:

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.
 
I think its quite fair to state that you have no proof the Mary was born without sin and that she entered into Heaven body and spirit. Thats really the point. You people are a legend in your own mind and in nobody elses Protestant or whatever you want to refer to them as.
Wow. Spoken like a true Anglican apologist!
 
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven:

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
 
RP:

You’re beginning to slide off the path of charity. Please re-read the stickys on proper forum etiquette. We do not wish to insult you; please give us that same courtesy.
 
Ah, it is only the Roman church who refers to Peter as the first pope but history doesn’t support that at all. The supremacy of Rome (or the illusion thereof) was always in constant question. Peter was a poor fisherman who wasn’t charasmatic at all and much of the time wasn’t even bright. The popes are carried into the mass surrounded by mounds of gold and jewels. Peter was poor. There isn’t even the remotest of comparisons here. Catholic teaching does not correspond with teachings of the early church. Check your history regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption. Nowhere to be found in scripture or the early church. Completely fabricated by the Roman Catholic Church.
Peter was out in front vis-a-vis the other apostles. The nature of things is that over time, clarifications occur. Words and ceremony reflect evident realities. How could it be otherwise?
 
nice try but still Catholic gossip. Macabes is not a true book of scripture but a book of the Apocrypha
 
Look for yourself and see what Paul says about marriage and divorce. Stop trying to questions one’s knowledge of scripture when if you knew them you would know yourself that Paul was clear about divorce. Why would the Catholic church forbid divorce period when scripture allows for it. Isn’t that church teaching that doesn’t square with scripture? No need to be complicated and distorted here.
Reformation+

You made this idiotic assertion: back it up.

You are the one jumping all around this thread with your wild-hair assertions without providing ONE, just ONE specific instance of St Paul on Divorce.

Of course in your universe, St Paul trumps Jesus on questions concerning Faith and Morals.

Quit the posturing.
 
Reformation Plus:
I am interested in looking up these scripture quotes for myself. Would you be able to post the quotes, so I can read them for context? Thank you.
 
Ok. Prove to us that your church is the best. Stop bashing ours, stop insulting Jesus’ mother, and stop insulting our beliefs. If you want to convert any of us, you’re doing a lousy job. You’re just coming in and being rude and insulting.
 
nothing in scripture proves that Mary is the ark of the new covenant or that she is the woman mentioned in Revelation as being clothed with the sun. In fact, she isn’t mentioned once past the book of Acts. Again, more Catholic add ons and gossip
 
Again, I respectfully ask why the feast of Mary is held in the Anglican Church on August 15. Why that day?
 
Look here, I gave scriptural proof of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Many here can give you more.

What proof have you given? None. Instead you make sweeping accusations and laughable claims, with nothing to back it up. Shall we judge the entirety of the Anglican church based on your posts here?
 
Look here, I gave scriptural proof of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Many here can give you more.

What proof have you given? None. Instead you make sweeping accusations and laughable claims, with nothing to back it up. Shall we judge the entirety of the Anglican church based on your posts here?
No, don’t judge Anglicans by this guy. I’ve known some, and they are much more polite and reasonable than this person. They also know how to pick a topic and stick to it.

Sorry I’m getting testy, but I’ve been snowed in for 2 days and I’m going stir crazy.
 
Look here, I gave scriptural proof of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Many here can give you more.

What proof have you given? None. Instead you make sweeping accusations and laughable claims, with nothing to back it up. Shall we judge the entirety of the Anglican church based on your posts here?
I don’t think he’s interested in any sort of civil discussion - which is a shame.😦
 
I am still waiting for the scriptural proof that divorce is allowed.

Shall I start on the Church Fathers for the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, or have you even bothered to read my last posts?
 
The truth shall set you free. Making claims that Mary is the ark of the new covenant will not gain you anything. Again, she isn’t mentioned once past the book of Acts. What you have given me for proof is (Edited by Moderator). It proves nothing. Just as calling Mary mediatrix is not scriptural but yet contrary to it and insulting to our Lord and Savior who said that nobody goes onto the father except through him (not Mary).
 
I don’t think he’s interested in any sort of civil discussion - which is a shame.😦
I agree, this thread could be quite interesting and informative if the OP had wanted something other than to spew his ignorance of the Catholic Church.
 
I will pray for all of you who have been distorted in this Lenten season. Have a good night my Christian brothers and sisters. I was Catholic for 34 years and I got out. The longer you are out of it, the clearer you can see the distortion and the brainwashing. May God be with you all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top