Distorted misconception about Mary being elevated to the level of divinity.

[Jesusisgod]

Darn, you gave part of it away!! Besides, was not Christ Himself “righteous”?

Psst…watch for the “doublespeak” …

God is the one who said ‘None righteous’, and Christ IS GOD. I refrain from bickering with you on vain arguments.

 

[RobHom]

God is the one who said ‘None righteous’, and Christ IS GOD. I refrain from bickering with you on vain arguments.

You’re copping out. You’re the one making statements. Taking scriptures out of context… You bombed!! You obviously haven’t read your Bible…just gotten to the “snippetizing” stage of it all.

Your second cop out…is running for the cheap seats…via ad hominem. We are all aware of the mendacious tendencies people such as you possess.

Spend a few minutes and ask God to help you find a way out of the darkness veiling your mind and life. If you ask Him sincerely, He will help you.

Peace!

 

[Jesusisgod]

You’re copping out. You’re the one making statements. Taking scriptures out of context… You bombed!! You obviously haven’t read your Bible…just gotten to the “snippetizing” stage of it all.

Your second cop out…is running for the cheap seats…via ad hominem. We are all aware of the mendacious tendencies people such as you possess.

Spend a few minutes and ask God to help you find a way out of the darkness veiling your mind and life. If you ask Him sincerely, He will help you.

Peace!

God already did. He told me to leave crazy people like you alone to your own devices.

 

[RobHom]

Ok, so you say none are righteous?

Why then does the Bible speak of righteous men? Abraham is said to be righteous. Noah likewise. Joseph of Arimathea. . . If there is not a righteous man, no, not one, then why does God say there **are **righteous men? Can you explain that to me?

I doubt that he can address this. He stepped in quicksand, and has not the ability to extricate himself.

His conundrum is that the Bible is the “inerrant Word of God”, “inspired by God”, etc, etc…sola scritura, etc, etc, and he quotes a snippet of scripture that states No one is righteous… But yet, that very same Bible names men who were righteous and the very same Bible says it, therefore…???

Waiting for the “tapdance” to begin.

BTW…there is no “vanity” in my words. You come on strong, I respond in kind. Can’t take the heat, take a cold shower. You get what you give. I play fair…

 

[RobHom]

God already did. He told me to leave crazy people like you alone to your own devices.

Taking another step down the path of perdition I see… Very good. Very “christian” of you. You even see fit to “judge me”… Hmmm, seems Christ said something about “not doing that”…right?

Maybe changing your login name would be appropriate, as there is no need for you to slander Christ’s name with your boorish words and conduct…

 

[Truthfaithlove]

Rob, I think he has already left…you should stop talking to yourself now.

 

[M0nkey]

Jesusisgood, Mary did not sin, Paul refers to those who sin. She’s “full of grace.” - Luke 1:28. The Bible does not contradict itself.

 

[RobHom]

Rob, I think he has already left…you should stop talking to yourself now.

I guess he took my advice!

And just when I was going to show him how badly he was out of context, and how far off the mark his “version” of the bible is compared to an original text…

Oh well, maybe tomorrow…

 

[Jesusisgod]

Jesusisgood, Mary did not sin, Paul refers to those who sin. She’s “full of grace.” - Luke 1:28. The Bible does not contradict itself.

You’re right, the bible does not contradict itself. The only contradiction is in understanding.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Above clearly states that ALL MAN HAVE SIN.

The verse you quote in Luke 1 DOES NOT SAY mary has no sin. Mary is no exception. She too has sins.

The contradiction lies in your understanding.

.

PS. I have not left, I just don’t like to waste time talking to nonsensical people like RobHom.

 

[RobHom]

You’re right, the bible does not contradict itself. The only contradiction is in understanding.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Above clearly states that ALL MAN HAVE SIN.

The verse you quote in Luke 1 DOES NOT SAY she has no sin.

The contradiction lies in your understanding.

.

PS. I have not left, I just don’t like to waste time talking to nonsensical people like RobHom.

Aw, gee…I guess the challenge to your intellect overwhelmed you…

Your problem is your lack of understanding the actual context of the Romans passage…and apparently my appraisal of you was fairly accurate…actually both of the Romans passages are out of context…

Might I suggest that you calm down and think before you put your fingers in motion? I could pick you apart easily based on that 5:12… You said “man”. Mary is a woman. Yep, mickey mouse…but there’s a point there. And you really do need to stop “snippetizing” and work harder to keep things in context.

 

[po18guy]

**
These people were deemed righteous because of their faith, NOT because they are sinless. Mary is NOT sinless. For one man sinned and therefore ALL sinned.**

So, God just tossed a denarius and chose a common, sinful teenager to send Gabriel to and announce as “full of Grace”? He, who created humans free of sin, was so weak, so powerless, that He could not do it again? Even to give flesh to His Son? Really?

You are cherry-picking scripture and misleading yourself. You appear to assume that your are wiser, more brilliant, and more filled with the Holy Spirit than 1,975 years of Apostles, Saints and Martyrs. True?

Jesus’ mother had a name. It is the most common woman’s name in Christendom. Yet, more than once, Jesus called her “woman”. That is the only name He is recorded as ever calling her. Why? Where else in scripture is a woman with a name called “woman”? Hint: Genesis.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Jesus’ mother had a name. It is the most common woman’s name in Christendom. Yet, more than once, Jesus called her “woman”. That is the only name He is recorded as ever calling her. Why? Where else in scripture is a woman with a name called “woman”? Hint: Genesis.

That seems to be more than a little splitting hairs. There’s at least one other example of Jesus referring to a woman as “woman”, certainly the fact that her name wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean the she didn’t have a name.

Also, how is God working through “a common, sinful teenager” created by God any more astounding than Him working through a common, sinful set of parents to see Mary born? Throughout the Bible God intentionally uses the weak, those we would not expect, from Jacob to David to Peter, so that we would not glorify those through which He works, but that all glory would go to Him.

Mary is to be greatly admired for her decision to submit to and pursue God’s will, even when that will presented her with a very troubling situation, but the credit goes to God for everything she was able to do, so I see no reason to lift up one person over another simply because God has chosen one for a great task and another for a humble task. We ought to honor people not according the the greatness of the task set before them, for that is God’s decision and not theirs, but rather by their faithfulness and obedience to that task.

 

[SIA]

No, no, SIA.

You only did half of what I asked, and the ‘simple’ half at that.

You gave me names. I asked for names and for the Scriptural passages that can be used to make the same claims for those people as are made for Mary.

You just threw some names out. Hey, I can name names from the Bible too, but if I am making a claim (as you did) that I can take Scriptural passages and make them ‘claim’ for these people what Catholics claim for Mary, then I need to back up my assertion with the relevant Scripture.

So please give it a go with the people you named, thank you.

I’m not that dumb. I merely made the point that there are many many other extrordinary people in the Bible that could have been put into those same instances but they were not.

 

[SIA]

Aw, gee…I guess the challenge to your intellect overwhelmed you…

Your problem is your lack of understanding the actual context of the Romans passage…and apparently my appraisal of you was fairly accurate…actually both of the Romans passages are out of context…

Might I suggest that you calm down and think before you put your fingers in motion? I could pick you apart easily based on that 5:12… You said “man”. Mary is a woman. Yep, mickey mouse…but there’s a point there. And you really do need to stop “snippetizing” and work harder to keep things in context.

You really do need to check yourself. You are becoming something far beyond just a spokesperson for the RCC.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not that dumb. I merely made the point that there are many many other extrordinary people in the Bible that could have been put into those same instances but they were not.

Oh, so you are backtracking your original statement and now trying to make us ‘prove a negative’ --to wit, that others ‘could have been put in the same instances but were not’. That is not logical and it is a disingenuous correction to boot.

That is NOT what you originally said, though. You said that you COULD use Scriptural passages to make the same claims for ‘other people’ that we apply to Mary. Which is not what you are saying now.

I am not going to ‘put you on the spot’. . .but I would like to point out that the strategy of making claims that people ‘could have been but weren’t’ is not worthy of serious discussion (the reason I’m not going to continue to discuss it now that this is what you are saying you ‘meant’. )

 

[SIA]

Oh, so you are backtracking your original statement and now trying to make us ‘prove a negative’ --to wit, that others ‘could have been put in the same instances but were not’. That is not logical and it is a disingenuous correction to boot.

That is NOT what you originally said, though. You said that you COULD use Scriptural passages to make the same claims for ‘other people’ that we apply to Mary. Which is not what you are saying now.

I am not going to ‘put you on the spot’. . .but I would like to point out that the strategy of making claims that people ‘could have been but weren’t’ is not worthy of serious discussion (the reason I’m not going to continue to discuss it now that this is what you are saying you ‘meant’. )

And I stand on that. The reasoning spoken of is that the RCC used things supposedly premised about Mary to declare the dogmas and other doctrine surrounding Mary. My point is that it could be done the same way with many different people in the Bible. I didn’t say that I was going to make up a specific example and have you and your guard dogs here tear it to oblivion.

 

[po18guy]

That seems to be more than a little splitting hairs. There’s at least one other example of Jesus referring to a woman as “woman”, certainly the fact that her name wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean the she didn’t have a name.

Also, how is God working through “a common, sinful teenager” created by God any more astounding than Him working through a common, sinful set of parents to see Mary born? Throughout the Bible God intentionally uses the weak, those we would not expect, from Jacob to David to Peter, so that we would not glorify those through which He works, but that all glory would go to Him.

Mary is to be greatly admired for her decision to submit to and pursue God’s will, even when that will presented her with a very troubling situation, but the credit goes to God for everything she was able to do, so I see no reason to lift up one person over another simply because God has chosen one for a great task and another for a humble task. We ought to honor people not according the the greatness of the task set before them, for that is God’s decision and not theirs, but rather by their faithfulness and obedience to that task.

It is God that honors them by the greatness of the task He assigns them. We just recognize and respect that honoring. Was not Moses, a sinner, held in high esteem, even to this day? Did not God speak thorough him? Was not the law written by his hand? God did the honoring. Do we sin in recognizing that honor?

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

It is God that honors them by the greatness of the task He assigns them. We just recognize and respect that honoring. Was not Moses, a sinner, held in high esteem, even to this day? Did not God speak thorough him? Was not the law written by his hand? God did the honoring. Do we sin in recognizing that honor?

God gave them a task of greatness, but it was not based on their own righteousness. Such actions lead me to give more glory to God for his ability to carry out His sovereign will with imperfect man.

When God gives someone a humble task, by contrast, are we to conclude that God finds that person less favorable? It is to greater credit of Moses that God was able to use Him despite his reluctance and initial unwillingness to go speak to Pharaoh, or to the nurse who readily accepted God’s call to care for children in an orphanage?

 

[graceandglory]

Gloves off? I have a feeling that you are looking for me. I am the one who asserted that the Catholic church raises Mary to the level of divinity. ** I also said **that the Mary of Catholicism is a different Mary than the Mary of Scripture. This is the biggest disagreement I have with the RCC.

Gloves off?
kpeople:

In this corner, ladies and gentlemen…
we have SIA, with his own limited human understanding and interpretation of scriptures…:tiphat:
And over in this corner…
we have the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which Jesus Christ Himself founded, and gave the Holy Spirit, and of which Christ said, “The gates of hell will not prevail against it,” we have 2,000 years of Tradition and holy men and women of God, and the apostles and all the Saints who have done His will throughout the ages." :nun1: :knight1: :knight2:



Seems sort of like an unfair match-up.

 

[RobHom]

God gave them a task of greatness, but it was not based on their own righteousness. Such actions lead me to give more glory to God for his ability to carry out His sovereign will with imperfect man.

I beg to differ. Your attempt at illustrating a valid example fails. Those people that God chose to perform tasks that HE desired to be done…were all righteous men, even though they were unknown to others to some extent at the beginning of their lives.

God never chose a backsliding heathen or idol worshiper in the Old Testament to do his bidding. And every man that He chose was of a certain caliber and character. The Bible itself denies your statement. Bottom line is that He NEVER used an unrighteous man…because God knew that since He had given man “Free Will” that men would not heed the words of the unrighteous.

When God gives someone a humble task, by contrast, are we to conclude that God finds that person less favorable? It is to greater credit of Moses that God was able to use Him despite his reluctance and initial unwillingness to go speak to Pharaoh, or to the nurse who readily accepted God’s call to care for children in an orphanage?

Look at the very history of Moses’ life… I think you grossly misunderstand that chapter in the history of the world as well as God’s plan. Everything happened according to God’s plan, and had little or nothing to do with any supposed reticence on the part of Moses. Moses was doing what Moses knew what he had to do, and knew how to go about it. He wasn’t stupid. Political posturing in the face of a tyrannical ruler with absolute power of life or death or subjects is not to be toyed with, especially when dealing with despotic rulers who have zero belief in GOD.

Equating Moses enormous task to the calling of someone to serve in an orphanage, is like comparing a jumbo jet to a paper airplane.