No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarysLurker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarysLurker said:
You only have an eye to see it because you are totally fine with a changeable God.
Click to expand...
As if God were not powerful enough to turn a heart to obedience without IC.
Who is changing God on this is up for grabs.
But “let us not suppose that because God can do something , that He did”…old church father
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
As if God were not powerful enough to turn a heart to obedience without IC.
Click to expand...
As stated in the OP, the only other alternative to Divine mutability is the denial of free will.

I reject both.

Ave Maria!
 
Last edited:
amen…so do I…yet He can be moved to change, and that is unchanging in Him…lol…what else am I to do, cry, at the bewilderment and glory of the I am ?
 
Last edited:
ReadTheBible said:
You want me to be more respectful of what? You say Mary was a perpetual virgin and scripture says otherwise. You say Mary was assumed into Heaven, yet again, there is zero scripture for this. You say Mary never sinned, and yet one more time there is no scripture. You believe what your Church tells you regardless if it’s contrary to scripture. I’ve stated before, Catholicism dogmas need no backing in their theology from God’s word because they rely on their own pontificating voice from yesteryear.
Click to expand...
Respectful of our faith. You are not. I realize you feel you are just stating fact but you are really stating your biased beliefs. It is only your opinion that it is not scriptural. The fact is there is not one scripture that states that all beliefs are in it. Scripture actually state the opposite. We do not know when Mary died it is not in scripture so according to your belief it didn’t happen. Why would the Assumption be recorded in scripture if her death is not? Jesus did not leave us with Scripture but with a church. You fight this because it would mean that your personnel view of scripture is wrong The Church did not come from scripture but Scripture came from the Church.

Jesus was not putting the woman in her place. What a strange thing to say. What was her place anyway? It should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus, after all such would go against honoring thy father and mother. Rather, it emphasizes like Luke 2:35 does that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus. I don’t disagree that Word of God is important I disagree that it is all we have.
 
Last edited:
ReadTheBible said:
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it .

Jesus put the woman in her place. Again Christ is elevating the word of God which is what again? Oh that’s right, scripture. 🙂
Click to expand...
Jesus merely elevates Mary in another way because she did exactly as the angel who was a messenger of God told her.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
" when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; " Mat.1:25
Click to expand...
Not quite. From KJV

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
In the NAB it is rendered this way
"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.

The way you phrase it is consistent with your view that they weren’t wedded but it isn’t what is stated.

I see that you are making a difference in them being married and not wedded. I think you need to define what you mean. What do mean by wed?
 
ReadTheBible said:
Luke 17:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it .

Jesus put the woman in her place.
Click to expand...
I guess St. Elizabeth, Mother of John the Baptist, was a liar when she said Mary was blessed among women.

No, Jesus did not say Mary was not blessed. He said She was blessed because She heard the Word and kept it: physically, in Her case. Jesus is saying He is the Word. Duh.

You, on the other hand, are insinuating that Jesus is a sinner because He broke the commandment to honor one’s mother. Or that God changes so it’s not bad anymore to diss your mom.

Reality is you’re just making it up as you go along. Actually, you aren’t. You’re just punching junk into Google and vomiting up whatever you find on various anti-Catholic websites that we have all seen a million times.
 
Last edited:
Scripture speaks for itself. Many of the mystical dogmas in Catholicism have no record in scripture. If Christ or any of the prophets wanted future generations to espouse to Mary all the titles and made up dogmas surrounding her, they could have simply provided us this proof.

Luke says in chapter 2 that Christ was the firstborn of Mary. Luke certainly knew Mary long after Christ was born. If Christ was the only one born of Mary, why not say Christ was the only son?

Christ on at least 3 occasions had the perfect time to show some kind of adoration, or veneration to Mary. He never did so. He respected her as her Mother which was following God’s law concerning honor your Father and Mother. He went out of his way to claim all who hear his words and follow them were his brothers, sisters, and mother. If you scroll up you’ll see Maryslurker claims Mary was greater than all of us. That’s contrary to what Christ said.

Catholic theologians say the use of adelphos and adelphe (brother and sister) are figurative instead of literal. Even though these terms are used in the same sentence in scripture with the Mother of Christ. They accept the literal word Mother but not brother and sister. They claim these words mean cousins even though there are zero instances of scripture doing so in the New Testament.

Furthermore, the New Testament authors certainly knew and understood the relationship of cousins. Luke wrote of Mary’s cousin in chapter 1.

Why then do Catholic theologians make the claims they do? It’s simple. They must twist scripture to fit their own traditions and where no scripture exists they’re free to make their own mystical tradition.
 
You have misrepresented my words and slandered me all because I have repeated holy scripture.
 
MarysLurker said:
Traditions like Holy Matrimony. Which of course is the real reason you’re here (which you accidentally let slip, but I knew all along.)
Click to expand...
I have no clue what you’re talking about. You think I’m participating in this discussion because I’m married? That makes less than zero sense
 
ReadTheBible said:
You have misrepresented my words and slandered me all because I have repeated holy scripture.
Click to expand...
You don’t reject the Seven Sacraments?

You reject “mystical tradition” and there is nothing more mystical than that.
 
Last edited:
You are adding your own commentary that is at odds with Scripture.
 
Last edited:
ReadTheBible said:
On the other hand, scripture does say in Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,
Click to expand...
Then go to the Hallmark Store, buy all the angel statues and smash ‘em.
 
Who is commanding them to make two angels? I’m pretty sure this is an important part you’re leaving out.

The two angels on either side of the ark were to symbolize the two angels on either side of God’s throne which is also described in scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top