Immaculate Conception and assumption

[dessert]

I know this ark is used but i have shown that it runs counter to proper interpretation principles. Not only that, we know that the apostles never taught this either. Again, i have yet to see anyone on these forumns defend their interpretation. All i see is a statement, an assertion but no defense. Lets take the ark as Mary. We know that God did not dwell in the ark. We also know in the ark were the 10 commandments, jar of manna and Aarons rod. Now explain how these things apply to Mary herself. Can you do that?
You should invest in an archeological bible with the study of the Hebrews and the history. I will try to paraphrase it some and it is a long book but just on a couple notes ; the jar is containing myrrh I think and is then burned as incense, the start of the priesthood as pre- Abraham so I think you have this wrong. The manna is representative of the last supper thaat is to come remember God gives signs, and contains the body repesenting eternal life that not only feeds the body but gives life everlasting to the soul. And this is when God started Noah on the pre-Abrahmac’s hebrew ways of the sacrifice on an altar or table, I’m still delving into my study book on this. The commandments are becoming very established and my book says that capital punishment is decided. A lot happened on that boat. Genisis 6-9 The traditions of ancient peoples thoughout the worldshare in common the inclusion of flood stories.
This is a universal study guide and not Catholic 2006 c. there are Ancient Flood Narratives and The documentary Hypothesis
it is a good read, they now sell it at Waldens books but smaller size for same price I paid and smaller print, you will need bifocals to read it
D.

 

[dessert]

Full of grace means sinless.

Yes, Mary was full of grace,sinless and John says Jesus was full of grace and **truth . and Mary was chosen , favored, one and Jesus was the anointed one. It makes so much sense to us doesn’t it!And Mary went to Elizabeth to get her signs confirmed, she followed the Jewish tradition all the way. Yet so many don’t believe! **
D.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo (Strong’s 5487), meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

But cannot charitoo also be translated as favor?

And as I understand it, *kecharitomene *is also used in Acts 6:8 with regards to St. Stephen. So this raises further questions in my mind. Is he “full of grace”, as well? And to the same extent as Mary?

Please understand that I have no desire to “stir the pot”. Just trying to comprehend, and find answers. They don’t come as easily as I’d like, sometimes! :banghead:

Thanks for your previous reply.

 

[JButky]

I believe it because i believe the apostles wrote the truth.

My argument is the with the catholic church that promotes doctrines that the apostles never taught and are based on speculations. The impact this has on catholics is that it takes their focus off Christ alone.

Let me encourage you to read and immerse yourself in the inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is only by them you will grow and mature in Christ.

The crux of the matter appears to be that you desire some sort of evidence for truth even though you accept on faith, as we do, that the apostles wrote the truth. We know the apostles didn’t write everything down. So how can anyone prove all these things from scripture alone? The Word of God is not merely a collection of books of some evidence.

We must therefore deduce that which is fitting and proper under the authority of apostolic succession from the deposit of faith, that which is truth.

Others have posted evidence (including yourself) of others being taken up to heaven. If Jesus honored His Mother in such a special way above all others, why is it so hard to believe on faith from what scripture has taught that the assumption occurred?

I just don’t understand how one can claim to know Scripture, know what Jesus taught in Scripture, know the special relationship that only Mary had with her Son, understand what that means, and then deny that Assumption.

Why do you need to have a verse that says this? It is quite saddening that our separated non Catholic brethren need some some specific scriptural proof for something so obvious.

If you understand Jesus and Mary from what’s in the Bible, this conclusion is inescapable.

What more evidence do you need?

What we catholics on this board need to do is take a moment to pray for our confused protestant friends that their minds may be opened to more than the just the words of Scripture, but that they come to know the reality of the Word made Flesh.

Let me encourage you to read and immerse yourself in the inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is only by them you will grow and mature in Christ.

If you truly desire to grow and mature in Christ, then to know Him you must seek out His most precious work and gift to us, Mary His Mother. For it is through her that He immersed Himself so that we may immerse ourselves in Him. Spend some time meditating on the Annunciation narrative. A world without Mary means there would be no Jesus, no Cross, no sacraments, no redemption for the world. Because she accepted God’s word in every way possible, we now have a model to really love Jesus as Mary did. After all the love that a mother gave to a Son and the infinite love that Jesus shared with His mother that was poured out on the whole world, once again I ask you, how could Jesus not have raised His mother to heaven?

I think you read the words without taking them fully into your heart. When you are ready, you will understand.

Joe B

 

[misslollipops]

If you truly desire to grow and mature in Christ, then to know Him you must seek out His most precious work and gift to us, Mary His Mother. For it is through her that He immersed Himself so that we may immerse ourselves in Him.
B

You think Jesus’ most precious work and gift was MARY???

What about His sacrifice on the cross?
What about the grace of our salvation?
Mary trumps these things??

 

[Tabitha]

You think Jesus’ most precious work and gift was MARY???

What about His sacrifice on the cross?
What about the grace of our salvation?
Mary trumps these things??

Just wondering, do you even read the posts here fully and completely? Because if you do, you would have seen that the previous poster said that Mary was Jesus’ most precious gift to us because WITHOUT HER…

THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS IN THE FLESH
NO SACRIFICE
NO SALVATION

Get it?

 

[Zooey]

The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo (Strong’s 5487), meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

You beat me to it…I was about to go search out this information.

Have you looked carefully at your definition? Where does it say that she was sinless?

** In here:** :bible1:
In the original Greek.:yup:
In the Latin Vulgate.:yup:
Re-read the post above, with the link, please…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lets take the ark as Mary. We know that God did not dwell in the ark. We also know in the ark were the 10 commandments, jar of manna and Aarons rod. Now explain how these things apply to Mary herself. Can you do that?

Sure. Here is a list of parallels:

OT: The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
NT: The ark of the New Covenant contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

OT: The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
NT: The ark of the New Covenant contained Jesus, the bread which came down from heaven. (John 6:31-41)

OT: The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1–11).
NT: The ark of the New Covenant traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).

OT: A man touched the Ark to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
NT: Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

OT: Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).
NT: John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).

OT: David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).
NT: Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42).

OT: The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).
NT: Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

OT: The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant (2 Sam. 6:11).
NT: The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God through the presence of ark of the New Covenant (Luke 1:39–45).

OT: The ark returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11).
NT: The arek of the New Covenant returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22).

Now, is all this just a coincidence?

 

[Randy_Carson]

But cannot charitoo also be translated as favor?

And as I understand it, *kecharitomene *is also used in Acts 6:8 with regards to St. Stephen. So this raises further questions in my mind. Is he “full of grace”, as well? And to the same extent as Mary?

Please understand that I have no desire to “stir the pot”. Just trying to comprehend, and find answers. They don’t come as easily as I’d like, sometimes! :banghead:

Thanks for your previous reply.

Kecharitomene does not appear in Acts 6:8 according to my Greek Interlinear Bible.

Pleres charitos (full of grace) is used there.

 

[guanophore]

That is true at times i show where it has. I have yet to see someone show me that i’m wrong at a particular point. Can you?

No, ja4. No one here will be able to do this. You already have your mind made up. Only the HS will be able to change it.

I know this ark is used but i have shown that it runs counter to proper interpretation principles.

One wonders where you got these!

Not only that, we know that the apostles never taught this either. Again, i have yet to see anyone on these forumns defend their interpretation.

In truth, ja4, there have been hundreds of posts from all kinds of members attempting to do this. You are intractible.

All i see is a statement, an assertion but no defense. Lets take the ark as Mary. We know that God did not dwell in the ark. We also know in the ark were the 10 commandments, jar of manna and Aarons rod. Now explain how these things apply to Mary herself. Can you do that?

This has been explained to you already, ja4. You made up your mind in advance that these explanations don’t follow the “proper interpretation principles” and that they are read into the text to support the “speculations of men” founded on error that crept into the church in the early centuries.

Not just late but early. We can see very early in the fathers that they were teaching things not taught in scripture.

And you have already said that scripture is the only revelation we have, and have rejected the Apostolic teachings that you cannot find within the pages.

Since men are fallible and susceptible to error it has happened to both groups.

You are saying that Jesus is a weakling or a liar, and was unable to preserve His Church from error as He promised.

What you say here was never taught by the apostles and was unknown for centuries. Do you deny this?

Categorically! Just like you deny the Sacred Oral Traditions that we have from the Apostles.

True because i don’t believe men are infallible. There is only one human being that could ever be said of.

Catholics believe that men are fallible also. That is why it requires divine intervention to protect the church from error.

I don’t know the reformers that well but i do scripture. The reformers were never infallible nor did they claim to be did they?

Not as much as you do.

You are the one who has the most difficult task to defend. To have to defend all that the catholic church has taught and done for centuries is an impossible task.

Especially with persons such as yourself, who are intractibly resistant.

I have yet to meet a catholic that claims to know all that the catholic teaches.

Let me know when you find one, I want to meet him too!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You think Jesus’ most precious work and gift was MARY???

What about His sacrifice on the cross?
What about the grace of our salvation?
Mary trumps these things??

I understand your questions…I think JButky was speaking the “language of love” out of devotion to Mary - a concept that is beyond you, I know.

However, not to get into too big a disputation, but I sort of consider that grace is a free gift of God (not Jesus per se), and that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was a gift of God the Father (John 3:16 comes to mind).

Finally, would you say that Jesus death on the cross was primarily something for us (ie, the man side of the equation) or was it something He did to satisfy the Father who had been offended by our sin (ie, the God side of the equation)?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just wondering, do you even read the posts here fully and completely? Because if you do, you would have seen that the previous poster said that Mary was Jesus’ most precious gift to us because WITHOUT HER…

THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS IN THE FLESH
NO SACRIFICE
NO SALVATION

Get it?

Misslollipops has been a member since September 16. In less than 30 days, she has posted 600 times.

At that clip, do you really think she has time to read carefully and reflect on anything?

She’s here to vent and to save us out of the Roman system.

 

[JButky]

the previous poster said that Mary was Jesus’ most precious gift to us because WITHOUT HER…

THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS IN THE FLESH
NO SACRIFICE
NO SALVATION

Get it?

Thank You Tabitha,

Yes Exactly. How else does one come to see the the importance of God and the manner in which He has done these things for us? You cannot have an emphasis on Jesus without Mary. God gave us Mary so that His work would be done as He intended. We must therefore recognize this and respond in kind by honoring her as He did.

God made it so. Why do so many deny it?

St Philip, the apostle went to Ethiopia which was cut off from the influence of rest of the world for centuries. And yet they too have a strong devotion to our Blessed Mother. The original poster wants evidence. How can this be if the Apostles didn’t teach this? Don’t you find it interesting that after hundreds of years, this area holds the same devotion. The ONLY link is and Apostle.

You now have living, continuous evidence.

Joe B

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Kecharitomene does not appear in Acts 6:8 according to my Greek Interlinear Bible.

Pleres charitos (full of grace) is used there.

Sorry, I got the two words tangled up in my previous post due to sleep deprivation.

So in Acts 6:8, St. Stephen is called “full of grace” as well. Right? And if so, is he “full of grace” in the same way as Mary?

 

[Good_Fella]

Sorry, I got the two words tangled up in my previous post due to sleep deprivation.

So in Acts 6:8, St. Stephen is called “full of grace” as well. Right? And if so, is he “full of grace” in the same way as Mary?

There is no significant difference in the text itself. But the Catholic doctrine about Mary is not based solely on Scripture, nor solely on one phrase in Scripture. The only difference is that the phrase referring to Mary (kecharitomene) is understood in the context of Tradition and of other passages throughout Scripture about Mary. And the phrase referring to Stephen (pleres charitos) is likewise understood in the context of Tradition and Scripture concerning Stephen. For instance, Paul writes: “…for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God” (Gal 3:26). But this does not mean we are all eternally begotten of the Father.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[MariaG]

That is true at times i show where it has. I have yet to see someone show me that i’m wrong at a particular point. Can you?

No. No one can. The truth must be revealed to you by the Holy Spirit.

The truth can be and has been presented, but the Holy Spirit has not revealed this truth to you yet.

When you come here, do you pray to show us the light of truth or ask the Holy Spirit to shine the light of truth on your own understanding?

I know this ark is used but i have shown that it runs counter to proper interpretation principles.

Could you please be more specific?

Not only that, we know that the apostles never taught this either. Again, i have yet to see anyone on these forumns defend their interpretation. All i see is a statement, an assertion but no defense. Lets take the ark as Mary. We know that God did not dwell in the ark. We also know in the ark were the 10 commandments, jar of manna and Aarons rod. Now explain how these things apply to Mary herself. Can you do that?

Someone else did so quite well. But I suppose we are not interpreting properly again? I don’t believe in conicidence, only God-incidence.

Not just late but early. We can see very early in the fathers that they were teaching things not taught in scripture.

Only because you have a faulty intepretation of scripture. That you choose to believe men who come along over 1600 years later, later than that of even the reformers, over those taught by the apostles is truly sad. Is your God so weak and so lacking in discernment from the Holy Spirit that even the apostles were unable to even choose faithful men to pass it onto as they instructed?

That is not what my bible says. Mine shows men so filled with the Holy Spirit that when they decided to go to one city, the Holy Spirit directed them to another instead in an instant. I believe that the “faithful men” that they picked with the guidance of the Holys Spirit knew what they were talking about. That you choose to believe otherwise defies scripture.

Since men are fallible and susceptible to error it has happened to both groups.

Again, you think the apostles, whom were led by the Holy Spirit as to who to pick, picked men who couldn’t get it right for even one generation?

What you say here was never taught by the apostles and was unknown for centuries. Do you deny this?

Yes, I do deny this. And you were shown quotes showing this from sermons in the first two centuries. Did you not see them?

Further, EVEN IF these things were not taught by the apostles, they are scriptural. We are LED to the Truth. Just as today Christians can “see” and understand the scripture about Christ in the OT, yet Jews deny that it is a proper interpretation.

True because i don’t believe men are infallible. There is only one human being that could ever be said of.

And by disagreeing, you are choosing to follow those whom scripture warned us against

I don’t know the reformers that well but i do scripture. The reformers were never infallible nor did they claim to be did they?

So even though scripture warns that there will be those who twist scripture, you don’t even know when your interpretation of scripture sprang into being?

Scripture warns of those who will use scripture and twist it. Your interpretation has come along and does not even fit with that of the reformers. Scripture has been twisted in your intepretation but you are unwilling to even open your eyes to this.

You are the one who has the most difficult task to defend. To have to defend all that the catholic church has taught and done for centuries is an impossible task. I have yet to meet a catholic that claims to know all that the catholic teaches

And you know all the Bible teaches? I pray I never stop learning what Christ has to teach me and I will always learn something new.

I don’t have to defend what the Church has done at all. Men are weak and even scripture shows us that men of the Church may teach one thing but practice another.

As for defending what it teaches, I gladly do so. There is not one dogma of the Catholic Church that contradicts scripture, properly interpreted.

Think about something. Most people who come to the Catholic Church claim to have been spirit filled individuals who did much bible study and claim to have a personal relationship with Christ before and after. Most who leave the Catholic Church CLAIM to know the teachings of the Catholic Church, yet say they never had a personal relationship with Christ before they left, most never read the bible either. Just think about that

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
That is true at times i show where it has. I have yet to see someone show me that i’m wrong at a particular point. Can you?
MariaG;

No. No one can. The truth must be revealed to you by the Holy Spirit.

Then it must have not been to anyone i have dialogued with yet in these forums since i have to see it.

MariaG;

The truth can be and has been presented, but the Holy Spirit has not revealed this truth to you yet.

Or its not the truth. Thats why i always go back to the scriptures and see if what the catholic church is teaching is found there. On the Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception it is not.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Then it must have not been to anyone i have dialogued with yet in these forums since i have to see it.

Or its not the truth. Thats why i always go back to the scriptures and see if what the catholic church is teaching is found there. On the Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception it is not.

Well, once you shed the Protestant glasses and look at scripture objectively then you might see it.

Otherwise it just might be part of God’s plan to keep you an enemy of his chosen.

I personally had to remove about 20 pairs of Protestant glasses, each time I toolk one off, Satan or one of his demons slipped another pair on…

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;

Quote:justasking4

What you say here was never taught by the apostles and was unknown for centuries. Do you deny this?
MariaG;
Yes, I do deny this. And you were shown quotes showing this from sermons in the first two centuries. Did you not see them?

The first mention of what happened to Mary in regards to her supposed assumption was not until 377. Even here it is admitted they don’t know what happened.

MariaG;
Further, EVEN IF these things were not taught by the apostles, they are scriptural.

How can something not even mentioned in scripture be scriptural?

MariaG;
We are LED to the Truth. Just as today Christians can “see” and understand the scripture about Christ in the OT, yet Jews deny that it is a proper interpretation.

You can claim to be led all you want but if its not in the scriptures nor are there any historical facts you don’t have the truth but speculations.

 

[justasking4]

Well, once you shed the Protestant glasses and look at scripture objectively then you might see it.

Otherwise it just might be part of God’s plan to keep you an enemy of his chosen.

I personally had to remove about 20 pairs of Protestant glasses, each time I toolk one off, Satan or one of his demons slipped another pair on…

Maybe you can help take these glasses off me. Now show me in scripture where the immaculate conception or assumption is mentioned by anyone?