Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[PRmerger]

I grant you that… it must have come by something but definitely not through logic.

Yes. And, you have accepted a premise that did not come through logic: that God is love.

To quote Blaise Pascal: 2 errors: to exclude reason and to include *only *reason.

Who’s Jimmy?

Ah. So you didn’t read the article.

Why are you dialoguing with someone who’s providing rebuttals to your arguments, yet not reading what she is proferring? It would seem to be a very juvenile way to engage in a fruitful and insightful discussion.

You accept his words as if they are more inspired than those of Holy Writ?

:whacky:

You see PRmerger, when one starts believing in something as Holy, without first examining it logically and with discernment, then whenever something unsavory crops up one tends to shut oneself tightly in one’s faith-shell, close one’s eyes, stop one’s ears and pray like hell that it’ll go away.

Exactly! That is a very Catholic statement you just made.

Perhaps you’ve never read Aquinas and Augustine?

Or you’ve missed the part of the Bible that says this: Examine everything carefully

That’s Jimmy; he believes that Jehovah is Good and beyond reproach so when something is presented that contradicts his preconceived view of Jehovah he has to rationalize it and come up with an explanation that primarily serves to convince himself and, as an after thought, others too.

Sounds exactly like what you’ve done, avflf, doesn’t it?? Haven’t you come up with an explanation that primarily serves to convince yourself?

 

[PRmerger]

New Testament? Ah! yes, silly me …he had to be male to go into Mary, right?

What exactly do you mean that God “had to be male to go into Mary”? Why would He “have” to be anything to go into Mary?

Did you know that the CC does not teach that the Godhead is a male?

 

[Arandur]

That’s Jimmy; he believes that Jehovah is Good and beyond reproach so when something is presented that contradicts his preconceived view of Jehovah he has to rationalize it and come up with an explanation that primarily serves to convince himself and, as an after thought, others too.

Avflf, you should start another thread, because this one will be closed when the moderator comes along (it has exceeded 1000 posts). In it please explain what your beef is with God and how you came to create your own personal conception that you call God. If you set it up quickly, you might be able to post a link to the new thread here before this one is closed.

As for your post, you seem to want to appeal to logic and reason without actually employing it or knowing what that entails. You dismiss arguments and evidence given for particular beliefs without challenging them or attempting to refute, just misdirecting or saying they’re not valid. Yet the very explanations that you dismiss as “rationalizations” are doing what you don’t seem willing to do: consider all the possible alternatives and explanations.

THAT is the pursuit of truth, the application of logic, the use of the gift of human reason. Yet you don’t seem to want to entertain alternative explanations and consider them on their merit. You just want to dismiss them. Sounds, then, like you’re the only one here doing what you accuse others of: “when something is presented that contradicts [your] preconceived view of [God/truth], [you] have to rationalize it and come up with an explanation that primarily serves to convince [yourself] and, as an after thought, others too.” In this case, your “explanation” is that these arguments should just be dismissed without examination; they’re just “rationalizations” or apologies to “explain away” things that you assume to mean something different. You don’t let those assumptions of yours be challenged; you don’t examine them. You just dismiss any challenges.

I’m unimpressed by such hypocrisy.

 

[Good_Fella]

**Well - whose views do **you trust?
If you tell me God’s or something like that - by whose authority?
If you tell me the Father’s or the Holy Spirit’s or Jesus’ s - then how about the millions of other Protestants who see things differently than you do? Are they right? Are they all wrong?

You see - this is the tragedy of Protestantism - thousands and thousands of constantly splintering, bickering denominations in which there is no unity.

Not exactly what Jesus had in mind (John 17) . . .

:slapfight:

 

[Good_Fella]

** Who’s Jimmy? You accept his words as if they are more inspired than those of Holy Writ?** Why must you use him and not the Bible itself? All he’s doing is trying to explain away what can’t be explained. You see PRmerger, when one starts believing in something as Holy, without first examining it logically and with discernment, then whenever something unsavory crops up one tends to shut oneself tightly in one’s faith-shell, close one’s eyes, stop one’s ears and pray like hell that it’ll go away.
That’s Jimmy; he believes that Jehovah is Good and beyond reproach so when something is presented that contradicts his preconceived view of Jehovah he has to rationalize it and come up with an explanation that primarily serves to convince himself and, as an after thought, others too.

Catholics don’t confuse the private interpretation of Scripture with the word of God as long as it is in keeping with Tradition and the infallible teachings of the Magisterium.

Your assessment of Jimmy befits someone more like yourself who is outside the Church and severed from the historic Apostolic Christian faith. Without the guidance of the Paraclete the best you can do is rationalize and appeal to logic. The danger is that eventually you become a victim of your own preconceived notions, prejudices, and presuppositions. And as a result, you’re really unsure about what you believe or should believe. This is why Protestantism will always be a divided house.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church, and be broufght up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2 (A.D. 180)

*Heresy: The obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic (universal) faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. *
[Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2089]
PAX :heaven:

 

[avflf]

What exactly do you mean that God “had to be male to go into Mary”? Why would He “have” to be anything to go into Mary?

Did you know that the CC does not teach that the Godhead is a male?

Well… you call them “Father” and “Son” not “Mother” and “Daughter” …

 

[avflf]

Avflf, you should start another thread, because this one will be closed when the moderator comes along (it has exceeded 1000 posts). In it please explain what your beef is with God and how you came to create your own personal conception that you call God. If you set it up quickly, you might be able to post a link to the new thread here before this one is closed.

As for your post, you seem to want to appeal to logic and reason without actually employing it or knowing what that entails. You dismiss arguments and evidence given for particular beliefs without challenging them or attempting to refute, just misdirecting or saying they’re not valid. Yet the very explanations that you dismiss as “rationalizations” are doing what you don’t seem willing to do: consider all the possible alternatives and explanations.

THAT is the pursuit of truth, the application of logic, the use of the gift of human reason. Yet you don’t seem to want to entertain alternative explanations and consider them on their merit. You just want to dismiss them. Sounds, then, like you’re the only one here doing what you accuse others of: “when something is presented that contradicts [your] preconceived view of [God/truth], [you] have to rationalize it and come up with an explanation that primarily serves to convince [yourself] and, as an after thought, others too.” In this case, your “explanation” is that these arguments should just be dismissed without examination; they’re just “rationalizations” or apologies to “explain away” things that you assume to mean something different. You don’t let those assumptions of yours be challenged; you don’t examine them. You just dismiss any challenges.

I’m unimpressed by such hypocrisy.

My argument is rather clear: I dismiss your concept of God being love and the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God by pointing out internal contradictions. For your part you refute these contradictions by “explaining away” the meaning of words - all of a sudden the same word does not mean the same thing, you invoke translation problems, in fact you go to great lengths not to tackle discrepancies in the Word of God head on. My questions regarding the unsavory character of Jehovah as described in the Book of Books are answered by asking me what my concept of God is. That’s unimportant to this debate, which is about the God of the Bible. You can start a thread if you want. I shan’t bother.

 

[PRmerger]

Well… you call them “Father” and “Son” not “Mother” and “Daughter” …

LOL! You do know that the Godhead is pure spirit, and thus cannot have any male “parts”, right?

God has revealed Himself to us in “masculine” terms because He is the First Cause, the instigator.

BTW, the Church is discussed in “feminine” terms, but we don’t say the Church is a woman, either!

 

[PRmerger]

My argument is rather clear: I dismiss your concept of God being love

So why do you think God is not Love? Is it because the Scriptures have described what Love is to you? I think so!

 

[tweetymom]

Know what I think? This thread has gone bonkers.:whacky::whacky::whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

My questions regarding the unsavory character of Jehovah as described in the Book of Books are answered by asking me what my concept of God is. That’s unimportant to this debate, which is about the God of the Bible. You can start a thread if you want. I shan’t bother.

avflf, the question of what your concept of God is, and how you’ve arrived at this concept, is quite relevant indeed.

You state that the God of the OT is not Godlike. **So…what would be a “godlike” God to you? ** You deny that God is Love because of the “unsavory character of Jehovah”. Ok. Then if you were going to create an image of a God of Love, what would that look like to you? We understand that you would not have this god “command” the slaughter of innocents. Understood. So…what would you have this god of yours be like?

It seems to me that you’ve never actually considered these questions, which is quite peculiar in a person who’s attempting to have a discussion about “the unsavory character of Jehovah.”

 

[PRmerger]

My questions regarding the unsavory character of Jehovah as described in the Book of Books are answered by asking me what my concept of God is.

Your question was addressed. You just chose to ignore it.

And when you make a statement that you believe “in a Supreme Being that is much more God-like than yours” you ought to be prepared to back up that statement. Tell us about this Supreme Being that is more God-like than ours. What does he do that makes him more God-like?

 

[guanophore]

Know what I think? This thread has gone bonkers.:whacky::whacky::whacky:

This is a very accurate observation, tweety. That is one of the natural and logical consequences of Atheism. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools”.

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: Why does Ezekiel 44:1 say that the East Gate was already closed, and verse 2 says that no one else shall go throught said gate, because the Lord God has gone through it into the Temple. I don’t believe Ezekiel was referring to MaryAnd what exactly was the date at Ezekiel’s time(before Christ, that is)?

 

[Prieldedi]

1beleevr, since you are still well established in Square One and before this thread closes, I offer you the links to three newsletters by John Martignoni about Mary.

The first one, Issue #126 deals with the following topic:
The Immaculate Conception (Part 1)

The second one, Issue #127 covers the following topics:
The Immaculate Conception (Part 2)
Mary Being Without Sin (Part 1)

The third one, Issue #128 has the following:
Mary Being Without Sin (Part 2)

The Newsletter will continue covering the rest of topics about Mary. It comes out on a weekly basis and you can subscribe to it.

God bless you

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: Why does Ezekiel 44:1 say that the East Gate was already closed, and verse 2 says that no one else shall go throught said gate, because the Lord God has gone through it into the Temple. I don’t believe Ezekiel was referring to MaryAnd what exactly was the date at Ezekiel’s time(before Christ, that is)?

**This is getting frustrating to no end. Why do you keep making the same statements instead of moving on? **Here it is again:

**When Ezekiel had his vision, the Glory of the Lord entered the house by the East Gate (Ezekiel 43:4). Ezekiel wrote down what he was told, *“This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut” *(Ezekiel 44:2). **
**
History tells us that Saladin, Muslim leader had the gate sealed in 1187 because of the prophecy that Jesus would enter through it (as if mere bricks could keep him out).

**So - we **KNOW that the gate wasn’t closed until more than 1000 years AFTER Christ, therefore, millions of people entered through it after he did. SO, it can be shown that the prophecy in Exek. 44 has a polyvalent symbolism and can be referring to Mary - as the Fathers of the Church said it did.

---

**By the way - the Book of Ezekiel is thought to have been written around 600 B.C. **Why do you ask?

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: You ignorantly said that the Gate was closed 1000 years AFTER Christ, which would contradict the theory that Ezekiel’s vision could be compared to Mary’s womb If I remember correctly,someone(could have been you), said something to the effect of the east Gate being referred to as a polyvalent SYMBOL of Mary’s womb; that the Lord had come through therem, and no one else wouldThen you say that it was not closed until 1000 years AFTER Christ! Sounds to me like a case of semantics! The bootom line is, that even if Mary was/was not a perpetual virgin; it should not be taught(other than to catholics and possibly EO) that belief in perpetual virginity is a part of the Gospel

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: You ignorantly said that the Gate was closed 1000 years AFTER Christ, which would contradict the theory that Ezekiel’s vision could be compared to Mary’s womb If I remember correctly,someone(could have been you), said something to the effect of the east Gate being referred to as a polyvalent SYMBOL of Mary’s womb; that the Lord had come through therem, and no one else wouldThen you say that it was not closed until 1000 years AFTER Christ! Sounds to me like a case of semantics! The bootom line is, that even if Mary was/was not a perpetual virgin; it should not be taught(other than to catholics and possibly EO) that belief in perpetual virginity is a part of the Gospel

Are you serious?
You STILL don’t get it, do you?
I’ll type extra * slow*:***

---

**Polyvalent symbolism is when multiple meanings can be derived from a single symbol, type or prophecy. The Church Fathers saw Mary as the fulfillment of the East Gate because **

---

In a vision, Ezekiel saw the following and wrote it down. Ezekiel 44:1-2 says:
**“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.”

**
**Now, I’m only going to explain this to you ONE MORE TIME. After that – you’re on your own. Are you still with me? Okay. Here comes the next part:

---

This prophecy can‘t be pointing merely to the ACTUAL Eastern gate because Jesus entered through it and MILLIONS of others passed through it AFTER him up until the 11th century when Muslim leader Saladin had it sealed up. He did this because of Prophecies of Jesus’ triumphant return through that very gate.

---

Mary, however, CAN be the fulfillment of the prophecy because the Lord entered the world through her – and NO OTHER AFTERWARD.

---

If that doesn’t register with you, there is nothing more I can say to make you understand.

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: Thank you for typing s-l-o-w-ly When I first read these verses years ago, I was not that well taught in seeing SYMBOLS in verse! So,I read, that the East Gate would be closed forever, because God had entered the Temple through that Gate! Your condescending tone, does nothing to clear anything up. First catholics disdain symbols, such as the bread and the cup(of wine), then cling to them to explain a THEORY about Mary’s perpetual virginityAs I stated, the bottom line is not whether she was a perpetual virgin, but rather, does one have to believe it to be saved? Many of us noncatholics have been accused of making our own list of “essentials” of salvation; when it seems that from the mouths of our accusrs, come the same thing. I still have a hard time believing that Jesus would teach His disciples that they, and WE had to believe this fact to be saved. So, I guess my answer is, NO, I do not believe that Ezekiel 44:1-2, is a SYMBOL of Mary’s womb. It is a creative approach, though, I must say

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Read these newsletters, and was impressed by how well schooled this man was in catholic theology! I kept hearing the word,“interpretation”, in my head while reading; which leads me to believe that this is the crux of all issues spiritual, between believers He says, there is no scripture which denies the "immaculate conception, and he doesn’t provide scriptural support for his position.I think the sticking point for most people, is that Mary was born of a woman, conceived through “normal” circumstances(you know,egg+sperm= baby). And as we know, everyone born after Adam and Eve, were born with a sin nature. It does not mean that God could not sanctify that particular womb, for the unblemished birth of His only Begotten:thumbsup:Let me ask you this, was Mary’s mother and her grandmother also born sinless?