S
sandusky
Guest
I cannot show you that exact quote, but I’m interested in you showing that quote to me.
- Status
G
Good_Fella
Guest
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. { 2 Samuel 6, 6-7 }
The Lord slew Uzzah for he was deemed unworthy to touch the holy and pure ark of the Old Covenant which contained the Word of God. The ark was undefiled. Luke draws a parallel between the ark of the Old Covenant and the ark of the New Covenant: Mary, the mother of our Lord, chosen by God to be the pure and spotless vessel of the Word of God made flesh. Mary was as pure and undefiled as the ark of the Old Covenant by the grace of God, so she could not have had a sinful nature or be a sinner like the rest of us. God prepared Mary by preserving her free from the stain of original sin, for she was particularly chosen to carry the Word of God made flesh. To presumptuously declare the mother of our Lord a sinner is to presume that God would permit His Word to be carried in an impure and defiled vessel. Yet God would not tolerate Uzzah touching the ark of the Old Covenant. So why would God allow Satan to touch the Ark of the New Covenant? I’m afraid this is not a question of humility. God chose not to condescend to such an unholy extent. (This is symbolized by David’s diverting the ark away from himself.) Holiness has nothing to do with sinfulness, the Son of Man being sinless. That is why God put enmity between the Woman and Satan and his offspring, original sin [Genesis 3, 15]. Now Protestants may argue that Jesus dared to touch an unclean leper, but the world is not a sacred vessel that carries the Word of God. One of the three angels who appeared to Abraham was supposed to have been God according to Judaic tradition. And God had already left his ark and entered the world by the time the Son of Man touched the leper and fraternized with drunkards, prostitutes, and tax collectors. Scripture clearly, however implicitly, reveals that Mary was the immaculate ark of the New Covenant and thus had a sinless and inviolate human nature.
David feared the Lord that day and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” So David would not have the ark of the Lord brought to him in the city of David, but diverted it to the house of Obededom the Gittite. { 2 Samuel 6, 9-10 }
During those days Mary set out (2 Sam 6,2) and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town in Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb (2 Sam 6,16), and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Gen 3,15). And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me" (2 Sam 6,9)? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled. Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home (2 Sam 6, 11; 1 Chron 13, 14).
{ Luke 1, 39-45, 56 }.
Not “all” have sinned. Holy Scripture implicitly reveals that Mary was sinless. This was certainly the traditional belief held by the faithful by the time Luke wrote his gospel. Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is infallible because Sacred Tradition is infallible.
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen (A.D. 244)
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
T
Thing
Guest
“The Bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin.”
Here it is. Is this your belief? As it appears to be emeraldisles belief.
S
sandusky
Guest
No. Scripture states that He would be born of a virgin; that’s the prophecy.
T
Thing
Guest
So why do you believe this? - “The Bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin.”
S
sandusky
Guest
I just said that I didn’t believe that. What’s your point? :ehh:
T
Thing
Guest
You said you believed the teaching.
Q. Does the Bible teach that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin.
You said, yes.
I said, Does the Bible state that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin?
You said, no.
S
sandusky
Guest
ISTM that you’re :whacky: !
T
Thing
Guest
Thankyou. Please say this in full if it is what you believe;
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
- the quote teaching this needs to be found in Sacred Scriptures.
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
S
sandusky
Guest
Once more, the prophecy states that He would be born of a virgin; that’s it.
T
Thing
Guest
Thankyou. Please say this in full if it is what you believe;
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
- the quote teaching this needs to be found in Sacred Scriptures.
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Adam and Eve were obviously sinless, but the Bible does not explicitly state: Adam and Eve were created sinless. Likewise, Mary was obviously sinless, although the scriptures are not explicitly clear on the subject. And nowhere do the scriptures explicitly state that the Holy Spirit is ontologically God. The Jews believe in God’s Holy Spirit, but the Spirit is not a distinct Person within a Trinity of Divine Persons. The Catholic Church declared that the Holy Spirit is God, just as she authoritatively declared, by divine assistance, that Mary was sinless. The Holy Spirit is obviously God, as Adam and Eve and Mary were obviously fashioned in a sinless state. By the way, if anyone should have been created sinless by the power of God, it would have been Mary, for she is the mother of our Lord; she carried the Word of God in like manner of the ark of the Old Covenant.
Mary was implicated in the sin of Adam, and so the Immaculate Conception. As the ark of the New Covenant, she had to be pure and undefiled - because Jesus was holy and sinless.
God does tell us that Mary was sinless. Luke draws a parallel between Mary and the ark of the Old Covenant. But the belief in Mary’s sinlessness existed among the faithful before Luke wrote his gospel. He simply confirmed a traditional belief of the Catholic Church.
Ignatius of Antioch equated Mary’s perpetual virginity with her sinlessness. We know what happened to Uzzah when he tried to touch the ark. At any rate, not everything an apostle taught was written down, at least not explicitly. Luke is implicit on Mary’s sinlessness.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
S
sandusky
Guest
Once more, the prophecy states that He would be born of a virgin; that’s it.
T
Thing
Guest
Thankyou. Please say this in full if it is what you believe;
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
- the quote teaching this needs to be found in Sacred Scriptures.
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
S
sandusky
Guest
Once more, the prophecy states that He would be born of a virgin; that’s it.
(I can do this as long as you can; you’re obviously trying to make a point, but I’m not getting it.)
T
Thing
Guest
Let me make it more clear:
Thankyou. Please say this in full if it is what you believe;
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
Thankyou. Please say this in full if it is what you believe;
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
- the quote teaching this needs to be found in Sacred Scriptures.
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
S
sandusky
Guest
Which doctrine do you think emeraldisle is inventing?
T
Thing
Guest
Maybe this is where you’re getting confused - you thought I said “The prophesy clearly teaches me…”, but, I actually said “The Bible clearly teaches me…”
Thankyou. Please say this in full if it is what you believe;
“The bible clearly teaches me that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
Then;
If one is bible only, -
“The bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin”
- the quote teaching this needs to be found in Sacred Scriptures.
If not, people like emeraldisle will be left blowing in a hypocritical wind, both accusing the CC that their Doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture - and then blithely inventing their own doctrine.
But where the Catholic Church believes in the continuity of Sacred Tradition;
‘Emeraldislers’ can give no reason at all for their doctrine unless they can show it explicitly stated in Written Sacred Scripture.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Why prolong the agony?
S
sandusky
Guest
OK.
- Status