P
Peter_Da_Rock
Guest
Most of those quotes came about because the belief concerning it came under fire by some pre-cursor to a modern-day Protestant.
- Status
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The scriptural passages in the OT and NT have already been pointed out to you numerous times. How many times have you asked this question in the past few months? I’ve lost count.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
MariaG
Guest
Actually, almost everyone has presented the truth, scripture and Tradition. You have just rejected it, or possibly just been blinded and not even seen it yet. You reject our interpretation of scripture, and I reject yours which has come along, and scripture warns against.
The Catholic Church is the most biblical Church around. That is why I am there.
God Bless,
Maria
M
MariaG
Guest
But it is mentioned in scripture, just not explicitly as you wish it to be. Just as some prophecy in the OT was hidden, so was other things.
Do you not remember all the scripture posted on this? Or do you still think all is just a coincidence? That John calls Jesus the Word by accident? That it is just coincidence that the Ark of the Old Covenant carried the Word of God?
You have yet to actually comment on all the Scripture and continue to claim that there is none. Have you truly not seen it?
Or do you just continue to reject that our interpretation of Scripture is correct? At least then offer an alternative interpretation of scripture.
J
justasking4
Guest
The problem is that those who want to claim these doctrines are in scripture refuse or ignore this continually. I have yet to see either from you or anyone a exposition of the passages used to demonstrate that it does teach the catholic position. No defense from catholics at all.The scriptural passages in the OT and NT have already been pointed out to you numerous times. How many times have you asked this question in the past few months? I’ve lost count.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
J
justasking4
Guest
J
justasking4
Guest
The problem is that all you and others have done is to make an assertion about these things and have not even begun to exegete passages to support your claims. I have just sent another post on this for you to show me the details of your interpretation.
G
Gamera
Guest
The Ark carried three items, all of which were “types” or foreshadowings of Jesus: the tablets of the decalogue, Aaron’s rod, and the manna bread. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, carried within her Jesus who fulfilled the law, became our high priest, and is the Bread of Life. In other words, the three items within the Ark of the Old Covenant all were “types” (foreshadowings) of Jesus being carried within the Ark of the New Covenant.
J
justasking4
Guest
Would happen to know if any catholic scholars make these claims about Mary? For example when i look at the New American Bible (catholic bible) and go to their footnotes i have yet to see any mention of it.
G
guanophore
Guest
It would be inaccurate and possible arrogant to assume that, because a certain Truth had not been revealed to you personally by the HS, that it has not been revealed to anyone else either.
It is difficult, and for some impossible, to apprehend the Truth of the Teachings of Jesus when they reject the authority that He has appointed over the Church.
You have taken the Holy Scriptures as your only rule of faith and practice, therefore you will be limited in what you can understand and accept of the Apostolic Teachings. It is your choice, of course.
G
Gamera
Guest
Sure thing.
“Whatever made the ark holy made Mary even holier. If the first ark contained the Word of God in stone, Mary’s body contained the Word of God enfleshed. If the first ark contained miraculous bread from heaven, Mary’s body contained the very Bread of Life that conquers death forever. If the first ark contained the rod of the long-ago ancestral priest, Mary’s body contained the divine person of the eternal priest, Jesus Christ.” – Hahn, Scott. “Hail Holy Queen,” New York: Doubleday, 2001, pp. 60-61.
G
guanophore
Guest
Same way the hypostatic union of Christ and the Trinity are scriptural.
This is your belief, ja4, and you are certainly entitled to it.
No, ja4, I am afraid it does not work this way. A person has to take their own glasses/blinders off. It would be an intrusion for another to do so. Furthermore, one will not do this without the help of the HS.
Anyway, you have already been shown all the scriptures that are fundamental to this doctrine, and have rejected them. Why cover the same ground? You have already made up your mind that this doctrine is the “speculation of men” that has crept into the Church through error over the centuries.
You have stated that your goal here is to try to get Catholics to use scripture to “judge” the teachings and leaders of the Church, so that we can see the errors of our leaders, and turn to a true Biblical Faith. You are not fooling anyone.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Because the Catholic scholars does not rely solely on footnotes. They look into other factors such as the Traditions of the Church. You seem to forget that Catholic Church does not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. She adhere to three pillars, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching.
Any Biblical Scholar who made a comment contrary to the Teachings of the Church, he can admittely say he made an error. For example, if a Biblical Scholar were to say, that Jesus Christ never intended to build a Church. He can theology say “Oops. I made a theological error.”
G
guanophore
Guest
His alternative can be found in the Chick Tracts!
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I like to put it plainly clear. God, the Father, hates sin, and since His holy Will desire that all men be saved, he sent forth his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who is the Word made flesh, and is also God.
It would only see fitting that Mary must be immaculate conceived from the moment of her conception, so that she can be made worthy to bear the Son of God. Remember the words of God when he spoke to Moses. “Take off your scandal for the very ground you are on is Holy.”
If Mary was not immaculate conceived, or sinless, then how would God who abhor sin allow a sinful woman bear his Son? God created Mary sinless. Just like when he created Adam and Eve before the fall as sinless.
I also think that if Mary was not immaculate conceive and was sinful like the rest of us, it would degrade Jesus. For Jesus’ own flesh came from Mary.
It would only see fitting that Mary must be immaculate conceived from the moment of her conception, so that she can be made worthy to bear the Son of God. Remember the words of God when he spoke to Moses. “Take off your scandal for the very ground you are on is Holy.”
If Mary was not immaculate conceived, or sinless, then how would God who abhor sin allow a sinful woman bear his Son? God created Mary sinless. Just like when he created Adam and Eve before the fall as sinless.
I also think that if Mary was not immaculate conceive and was sinful like the rest of us, it would degrade Jesus. For Jesus’ own flesh came from Mary.
G
guanophore
Guest
That is because Catholic Teachings don’t come from Scripture, ja4. CAtholic teachings come from Jesus, through the Apostles. Scripture is a reflection of this Teaching, which you reject. What is problematic is that you accept the NT, which emanated from the Sacred Teachings, and reject it’s source?!
Why would this matter, since footnotes and Catholic scholars are not the teaching authority of the Church? Even if they did, why would that matter anyway, since such a claim would just be a “speculation of man”?
It is another strawman.Do you deny that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, our great high priest, and the Bread of Life?
Do you deny that the contents of the Ark prefigured the identity of Christ?
J
justasking4
Guest
This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the Scriptures, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. And just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments.
i don’t reject all catholic teachings.
What i reject is the claim that it cannot err or has never erred.
They do shed light though on what knowledgable catholic scholars think though. They do carry weight.
Maybe. However i’m finding that i do have some agreement with what they write. From what i have read they do a better job with the contexts etc than what i have seen here.guanophore
Even if they did, why would that matter anyway, since such a claim would just be a “speculation of man”?
no
i can see that as being valid.
J
justasking4
Guest
i honestly don’t see a problem with Mary being a sinner having any impact on the purity of Christ. Did not Jesus allow Himself to be in the company of sinners and touched them with His hands?
When He did so, did it make Him unclean and unholy?
Did not Jesus also become “sin on our behalf” and become unholy by it?
I think we would agree that these things did not make Him unholy or unclean. Through all this He still was the sinless and holy Son of God untainted by sin.
J
justasking4
Guest
Y
YADA
Guest
There are many footnotes found in bibles, some bibles have no footnotes, some bibles have lots of footnotes…
Everything written regarding scripture passages is not footnoted. So it is not necessary for the typology [foreshadowings of Christ] to be footnoted.
Do you fail to see a foreshadowing of Jesus in Aaron’s levitical priesthood? What of Melchesidek and the offerings of bread and wine? Do you fail to see the foreshadowing? Abraham’s ner offering of Isaac [his only son]? The manna from heaven?
Most bibles do not specifically call attention to the biblical types. That does not mean that they do not exist, that they have always existed and that the people of God were too dense to ‘get it’…
unless of course it was footnoted for them- Status