Sinless Mary

[Leeann]

I believe you are sincere. If one reads history one will see that the Catholic Church is the true Church. The matrys were not Christians they were Catholic. It is a Protestant myth to use the term Chrisitian. Read the history of these matyrs. They were Catholic in every sense. The mass they attended was Catholic. Papal authority is not only in the Bible it is in secular history. As a former Protestant I thought that Catholicism was a myth made up by Catholics. I am an avid reader of history. If one reads secular historians about Rome and Romans one will find a Catholic belief. Not a Protestant one. If you read letters written from the early Church one sees Catholicism not Protestant belief. One can refute Mother Mary; however, there is evidence that she enters this world and touches people. Signs such as 70,000 people seeing her over 20 mile area. Atheist and secular newspaper supporting the testimony of the believers. The evidence is overwhelming. Protestant do not want people to read history because once one does it is very clear that it is the Catholic faith that did all of this not just “Christians”. Sola Scriptura is designed to keep the truth hidden from people. If you truly want to know the world of God read some history books for yourself and see if what I state is true. It will show the early Christians were taught by the Apostles and they were Catholic. Do not read Catholic or Protestant historians. (Protestant historians will always use the word Christian instead of Catholic) Read secular historians and get to the details of the beliefs. You

will see Catholicism not Protestant beliefs. I was the most ardent against Catholicism. I debated Catholic’s constantly. I read books with the intent of gaining knowledge to refute Catholic beliefs. As I read more and more books it became very clear that Protestant thoughts were man made thoughts designed to keep people ignorant of the truth. Do you want to know the truth about Christ? I challenge you or anyone else to begin to read history. Read what the exact cause of Christian persecution was in the 1st and 2nd centuries. What were they charged with. Read the letters of the earliest Christians. You will see Catholicsim. The evidence is overwhelming. I am a Catholic now because the truth forced me to be.

Hi Perry…a little late in response, popping in when I can…can’t believe the amount of new postings since this one!

Perry…that’s an amazing story about your conversion…the truth that you found in secular history books forced you to become a Catholic.

Would that be in anyway similar to the magnitude of God’s Grace and His power of drawing and revealing HIS truth to people, and once they’ve experienced and understood His mercy and unfathomable love they then desire to follow Him and become true believers/Christians…both Catholic/Protestant?

 

[Good_Fella]

GOOD FELLA!

Hope you live up to that name!

It simply doesn't seem possible that St. Paul would have made no reference to Mary at all if he considered veneration of her and prayers to her important. So many Catholic churches are named after her today, so many miracles claimed in her name, so many prayers directed to her. It still impresses me that Paul excludes all mention of Mary.

 Besides, as has been mentioned before, in the only two occasions that Mary appears in the gospels between the childbood of Jesus and the crucifixion, Jesus actually seems to mildly rebuke her. See John 2:1-22 and Luke 8:19-21.  

 Frankly, I think Catholicism needs to move away from notions that devout people in earlier centuries could accept but no longer can. Like the condemnation of Galileo. The Church finally apologized (not long ago) for teaching foolishness re the sun vis a vis the earth and forcing Galileo to recant.

  Most people with an advanced education today want to embrace a faith that focuses on God and the ethical teachings of Christ, but they will more and more drift away from what appears to them to be well-meaning and pious superstition.

Aren’t you aware of the purpose of Paul’s pastoral letters? If so, you can understand why he doesn’t explicitly refer to Mary , not even the virgin birth.

None of the apostles were granted full explicit knowledge of God’s entire mysterious plan of salvation. They were inspired to write what they could just implicitly understand at the time. I doubt they even understood what original sin is in its full implications. Your understanding of divine revelation is ingenuous. The fullness of God’s truth unfolds in time through the Catholic Church which is founded by Christ - not Arius, Luther, Calvin, or Smith…

I suggest you contemplate on the first two chapters of Luke to better grasp the Church’s perception of Mary. And read John more closely while you’re at it: Chapter 2 and 19. Jesus would never rebuke his mother in public and thereby dismiss the fourth commandment by dishonouring her to make Fundamentalists happy. The appellation “Woman” served as a title of respect and dignity among the Jews. Because of Mary’s solicitation, Jesus performed his first key miracle and began his ministry. He waited for his mother to intercede on behalf of all of us, not merely the wedding guests. (See Paul on prayers and intercessions.)

Paul tells Timothy that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, not the Bible. What God reveals implicitly in the scriptures gradually becomes explicit in the teachings of the Church. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium comprise the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith.

PAX

 

[Leeann]

What about St. Ignatius of Antioch? He was a disciple of St. John, the Apostle, who is believed to have died in 110AD, the same year St. Ignatius was martyred. St. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter, the Apostle.

I know Manny brought this up, to which you thanked him for his insight. While a ‘thank you’ is nice, it does not tell us what you think in reference to your statement that by that time many false teachings had been introduced.

Also, in reference to your statement that by 100 to 110AD, many false teachings had been introduced, how does the teachings of reformers 1500 years after the death and resurrection of Christ become ‘true’ teachings?

Hi Prodigal Son -

1st par: I like some of his writings actually!
2nd par: well…they had been…evidenced by the warnings by the Apostles when they were preaching/and also warnings that people would be decieved in latter years also

3rd par: a lot of people regard the reform. as the beginning of a new religion (Protestantism) - I believe it was more of an attempt to get back to the basics of the truth of the gospel message of what the early churches were established on by the Apostles.

 

[Leeann]

from Goodfella:

None of the apostles were granted full explicit knowledge of God’s entire mysterious plan of salvation. **They were inspired to ****write what they could just implicitly understand at **the time. **I doubt they even understood what original **sin is in its full implications. Your understanding of divine revelation is ingenuous. The fullness of God’s truth unfolds in time through the Catholic Church which is founded by Christ - not Arius, Luther, Calvin, or Smith…

**Perhaps you should contemplate what ****Paul wrote **

(in fact I think we should all contemplate it - so here it is for all to see)

1 Corinthians - Chapter 2

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 **Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are **freely given to us of God./B]

13 **Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s ****wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; **comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Seems to me that Paul **understood quite a bit **and put it down quite clearly. He also explains quite clearly the “understanding of divine revelation” which you find “ingenuous”.

Paul tells Timothy that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, not the Bible. What God reveals implicitly in the scriptures gradually becomes explicit in the teachings of the Church. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium comprise the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith.

You are correct…1 Timothy 3V15
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

however it doesn’t say that ‘church’ is the Catholic church as we know it today… and it is interesting that in the very next chapter 1 Tim Ch 4 - Paul warns of false teachers in the latter days, …deceived by spirits and doctrines of demons…forbidding to marry…abstaining from certain foods…now *that *sounds more familar…

 

[Good_Fella]

from Goodfella:

**Perhaps you should contemplate what ****Paul wrote **

(in fact I think we should all contemplate it - so here it is for all to see)

1 Corinthians - Chapter 2

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 **Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are **freely given to us of God./B]

13 **Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s ****wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; **comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Seems to me that Paul **understood quite a bit **and put it down quite clearly. He also explains quite clearly the “understanding of divine revelation” which you find “ingenuous”.

You are correct…1 Timothy 3V15
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

however it doesn’t say that ‘church’ is the Catholic church as we know it today… and it is interesting that in the very next chapter 1 Tim Ch 4 - Paul warns of false teachers in the latter days, …deceived by spirits and doctrines of demons…forbidding to marry…abstaining from certain foods…now *that *sounds more familar…

Paul is speaking of the One Catholic (universal) Apostolic Church founded by Christ on his Apostles and their valid successors, the Episcopacy of the Catholic Church. Jesus promised to be with his Church until the end of time. Thus he sent the Paraclete to lead his One Catholic Apostolic Church in all truth and preserve her from teaching error until his return. The false teachers Paul warns Timothy of refer to those who existed during their lifetime. But numerous heretics have sprung up in the history of the Church. Arius and Luther (both Catholic priests) are the two greatest heretics to have entered the scene. Fundamentalists like yourself aren’t considered positive heretics since you have never been in full communion with the Church to begin with. But you folks definitely resemble gnostics.

Going back to Paul, all those verses you laboriously quoted tell us nothing of how much he actually understood. Arian Catholics can produce an equal number of verses to show that Paul never taught Jesus was a divine Person whose nature was hypostatically united with a human nature by the power of the Holy Spirit. Outside the Church and Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, your Bible is useless to you. You can only reason from hindsight bias when interpreting the scriptures. You were aware of the Catholic definition of the Trinity before you had ever studied the scriptures. Case closed.

PAX

 

[Leeann]

Paul is speaking of the One Catholic (universal) Apostolic Church founded by Christ on his Apostles and their valid successors,Case Closed -would more appropriately go in here)

Yes…isn’t God’s Grace wonderful!
Similar to Saul’s (Paul’s) experience of God’s Grace - and it comes to mind that - he never had “the Catholic definiton” on anything either!

Case closed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes…isn’t God’s Grace wonderful!
Similar to Saul’s (Paul’s) experience of God’s Grace - and it comes to mind that - he never had “the Catholic definiton” on anything either!

Case closed.

He did. He spoke about spreading the Gospel to the ends of the earth. That sounds pretty universal to me, or Catholic.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella;4187525:

Perhaps those verses tell you nothing because you are steeped in “man’s wisdom” - “wisdom of men” and that could also be said of the Arian Catholics.

These verses may help you understand how much His disciples and all the Apostles - which would include Paul knew - and how this would come to be:

John Ch 14:26

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Outside the of “men’s wisdom” - “the wisdom of men” - His word IS wisdom and the truth.

Yes…isn’t God’s Grace wonderful!
Similar to Saul’s (Paul’s) experience of God’s Grace - and it comes to mind that - he never had “the Catholic definiton” on anything either!

Case closed.

You mean outside the wisdom of woman who goes by the name of Leeann. How could you possibly claim to know you are right other than by appointing yourself as the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium of the Church?

Did you enter this thread to discuss the theological implications of the sinlessness of Mary or embark on an anti-Catholic crusade?

Gnoticism: the heretical theory that salvation comes from some special kind of knowledge claimed by an individual or group outside the Church. The adoption of the Gospels according to their own personal views and for their own purposes.

Secular historian Jacob Burckhardt described the Gnostics of antiquity as “speculative enthusiasts”.

Case closed! :coffeeread:

 

[PerryJ]

Good Fella;4187525:

Outside the of “men’s wisdom” - “the wisdom of men” - His word IS wisdom and the truth.

I apologize as I have to digress a bit to reply to this statement.

Have you studied the creation of the Bible? The Bible was defined by the Catholic Church. The OT and NT did not exist prior to the Church. The Saducees and Pharisees had two OT sets of books. The Catholic church based the OT off of the Bible Christ used. The NT was defined by the Catholic Church from over 75 books. The Protestant do not use the correct Bible as they have stopped using the DCs. We all know that this is based on Luther reverting to Jerome. Jerome was the first to exclude the DCs and it was based upon information that has been proven false.

The oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dates from the Middle Ages (the copy was made in A.D. 1008). The oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament dates from the fourth century A.D. In fact we do not have any original copies of the OT or NT. For the NT we have 5,000 fragmentary pieces that no two are the same. With this we have 400,000 variatons in the NT. This is with only 35,000 words in the NT in total. The Bible you have before you is not the original Bible and not the words of Peter, Luke John etc.

I have a faith that uses Traditions and the Bible via the Holy Spirit to guide our teachings. You have no such authority. You have a man made Bible. Each with convictions from the man that pieced it together and then translated it. You then use this Bible against the one true Church that defined it. You state that we use the wisdom of man; yet, you use a book that was created by man. My Bible is inspired and defined by God. How do you know if your book is truly the teachings of the Lord?

A couple of well know variants are “alone” in Romans. We also have the use of the term “highly favored” concerning Mary. We also have additions to the Lord’s Prayer. The ending of Revelation and Mark to name just a few. Yet you believe SS is the truth. Whose truth is it? Is it Gods or the man that created your version of the Bible for you? Is it the truth that Mother Mary is “full of grace” or the new made up version “highly favored” The difference is significant.

A man named Erhlman was a strict Episcopalian that started to perform Bible exegesis. After receiving his PHD and studying the Bible in detail he became an agnostic. Why did he do this? It was because he believed in SS and found out that the Bible could not be accurately portrayed in this manor. I am not to shake ones faith. My point is SS is not only a fallacy it is impossible to truly accomplish. This is why Protestants have false doctrines. One can not base their belief solely on the Bible. The Lord knew this and left the Holy Spirit in the one true Church.

You are sincere; however, your knowledge is lacking. The statement that we have man made wisdom shows that you do not understand how the Bible was created or what it is. It also shows that you have not read about Luther or Calvin. I would suggest reading about all of these as you will see your faith is a fabrication made up by men. Keep reading about the Faith the truth will come.

As I have stated on other threads one can only do scritputral exegesis if one use a Catholic Bible. To do this though one would need to submit to the authority of the Church.

 

[Leeann]

Did you enter this thread to discuss the theological implications of the sinlessness of Mary or embark on an anti-Catholic crusade?

 

[PerryJ]

Good Fella;4187908:

**God incarnate,Jesus Christ **

in prayer for His disciples and for the unity of believers who would follow:
John Ch 17
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Peace and God Bless

The use of the term “word” is not concerning the Bible. Jesus is giving a prayer for his Apostles. Some claim that it is for all Christians. In either case the Bible did not exist and the use of "word’ is referring to teachings. It has nothing to do with the Bible as it would not exist for hundreds of years.

 

[Leeann]

Leeann;4187791:

I apologize as I have to digress a bit to reply to this statement.

Have you studied the creation of the Bible? (Yes)

The Bible was defined by the Catholic Church. The OT and NT did not exist prior to the Church. The Saducees and Pharisees had two OT sets of books. The Catholic church based the OT off of the Bible Christ used. The NT was defined by the Catholic Church from over 75 books. The Protestant do not use the correct Bible as they have stopped using the DCs. (in your opinion) We all know that this is based on Luther reverting to Jerome. Jerome was the first to exclude the DCs and it was based upon information that has been proven false. (by whom? the Catholic church???)

The oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dates from the Middle Ages (the copy was made in A.D. 1008). The oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament dates from the fourth century A.D. In fact we do not have any original copies of the OT or NT. For the NT we have 5,000 fragmentary pieces that no two are the same. With this we have 400,000 variatons in the NT. This is with only 35,000 words in the NT in total. The Bible you have before you is not the original Bible and not the words of Peter, Luke John etc. (You’re stating this as if the authority you have,including the use of “Traditions” is in some way better or more authentic than what I may have…and that’s okay for you, it’s your opinion)You have a man made Bible.(inspired by the Holy Spirit) Each with convictions from the man that pieced it together and then translated it.(inspired and under the direction of God) You then use this Bible against the one true Church that defined it. You state that we use the wisdom of man; yet, you use a book that was created by man.(who were under the authority and direction and inspiration of God) My Bible is inspired and defined by God. (Oh…well…glad to see you finally gave Him His rightful due!) How do you know if your book is truly the teachings of the Lord? I’ve never had any doubt.

A couple of well know variants are “alone” in Romans. We also have the use of the term “highly favored” concerning Mary. We also have additions to the Lord’s Prayer. The ending of Revelation and Mark to name just a few. Yet you believe SS is the truth. (an assumption on your part…because I have never stated that) Whose truth is it? Is it Gods or the man that created your version of the Bible for you? Is it the truth that Mother Mary is “full of grace” or the new made up version “highly favored” The difference is significant. (only if there is a desperate need to build a base for a new theology…Marian maybe.)

A man named Erhlman was a strict Episcopalian that started to perform Bible exegesis. After receiving his PHD and studying the Bible in detail he became an agnostic. Why did he do this? It was because he believed in SS and found out that the Bible could not be accurately portrayed in this manor. I am not to shake ones faith. My point is SS is not only a fallacy it is impossible to truly accomplish. This is why Protestants have false doctrines. One can not base their belief solely on the Bible. The Lord knew this and left the Holy Spirit in the one true Church. (which I’m assuming you mean to be here - the Catholic church as we know it today? Sorry - I don’t believe that to be true, it’s simply not the same church, His church and the ones the Apostles established)

You are sincere; however, your knowledge is lacking. The statement that we have man made wisdom shows that you do not understand how the Bible was created or what it is.(I disagree…what it shows is that I believe in a God that is above our limited, human knowledge and understanding) It also shows that you have not read about Luther or Calvin. I would suggest reading about all of these as you will see your faith is a fabrication made up by men.( another assumption on your part…) Keep reading about the Faith the truth will come.

As I have stated on other threads one can only do scritputral exegesis if one use a Catholic Bible. To do this though one would need to submit to the authority of the Church.
Of course they would! To get their “slant” of things.

There are all sorts of “assumptions” within these statements…as to what I believe…what I follow…who I follow…and my depth of knowledge concerning who “gave us the bible” …what I’ve read…what I haven’t read…getting past that…I thank you for the time you took to put this together and sincerely appreciate the way you’ve presented it.

Peace and God Bless

 

[Leeann]

Leeann;4188780:

The use of the term “word” is not concerning the Bible. Jesus is giving a prayer for his Apostles. Some claim that it is for all Christians. In either case the Bible did not exist and the use of "word’ is referring to teachings. It has nothing to do with the Bible as it would not exist for hundreds of years.

Hi Perry - I highlighted that whole line for the part about “sanctify”
stressing the Apostles unity with Jesus and the authority they would ultimately have in this unity - I think I should have highlighted the one above it also - as for “some claiming that it is for all Christians”…well…V 20 says what it says.

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ;4188013:

Of course they would! To get their “slant” of things.

There are all sorts of “assumptions” within these statements…as to what I believe…what I follow…who I follow…and my depth of knowledge concerning who “gave us the bible” …what I’ve read…what I haven’t read…getting past that…I thank you for the time you took to put this together and sincerely appreciate the way you’ve presented it.

Peace and God Bless

You state part of my posts as if they are my opinion when they are not. My facts are supported by source documents; which, I can give you or you can find on your own. My sources are often secular in origin.

Jerome’s assumption has been proven wrong by the Dead Sea and Ben Sira scrolls. You can verify this through secular sources.

Our authority is based upon Christ creating one Church. This is not only verifiable in the Bible; but, history also. You can read letters from Clement that lived with the Apostles and other early Christians. They all show Rome as the one true Church. You may state this is opinion; however, if you read history it is not opinion the evidence is overwheming and very much secular.

Christ is the center of a Catholics life. We bow down before our Lord each Mass. We believe in self sacrificing love and redemptive suffering. Christ is our core and our strenght in good and bad times.

Marian theology was from the very beginning. This is supported by secular history again. Protestants often try to project that Marina doctrine is brand knew. I guess they believe this because they only read the Bible and ignore the writings of the early Church Fathers and secular history. We have a papyrus showing a Marian prayer dated prior to any Bible we have. This is history not opinion.

Your statement that the Catholic Church of today is different then the earliest church is historically inaccurate. I have mentioned to you that one only has to read documentation concerning the Mass. It is the same today as then. Catholic’s were executed in the firts century for believing in the Body and Blood of Christ just as Catholics believe today. Did you know the earliest Church stood against abortion with Rome. Just as we do now. The Church has not changed. It is still the same Church and you can see this in secular history books.

Have you read about how Luther came to the conclusion of faith alone. Read the history of this man. You will see that his theology is a fabrication. This you can actually read his own writings.

I agree that one should not change faith based upon posts. Read about these subjects.

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ;4188911:

Hi Perry - I highlighted that whole line for the part about “sanctify”
stressing the Apostles unity with Jesus and the authority they would ultimately have in this unity - I think I should have highlighted the one above it also - as for “some claiming that it is for all Christians”…well…V 20 says what it says.

I am not disputing that it is for all Christians. I am merely pointing out that some have different thoughts. I would agree with you on this thought.

I did not know if you believe that the term “word” meant the Bible or not. I was merely pointing out that it doesn’t.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4189042]

You state part of my posts as if they are my opinion when they are not. My facts are supported by source documents; which, I can give you or you can find on your own. My sources are often secular in origin.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1
Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in

Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I’ve already covered the issue with “All Have Sinned” to show without anybody being able to refute my posts concerning PAS, HAPAS, and HOLOS to show that the “ALL” in that verse and others of like nature show that it does not mean "Each and Every Person"

**So now I will give an example of a person that never sinned therefore the person is sinless even though they have the propensity for sin thru the original sin. **

1. A little boy of age 4 survives a plane crash in the jungle.

2. The little boy lives for about 50 years alone.

3. He cannot possibly sin at all since he is alone.

4. He can’t have no other Gods since he has no knowledge of God.

5. He can’t take the Lord God’s name in vain because he has no knowledge of God.

6. He can’t defile the Sabbath, because he has no knowledge of it’s existence

7. He cannot dishonor mother nor father since both have died in the plane crash.

8. He can’t bear false witness against anyone since he had never come in contact with anyone else.

9. He cannot steal from anyone for the same reason as 8.

10 He cannot kill anyone since there is no one to kill.

11. He cannot covet anyones wife.

12. He cannot covet anyones manservant.

13. He cannot covet anyones property.

14. What sin could he possibly commit if he has had no contact with anyone and has no knowledge of God or Jesus what so ever?

15. Would not this person be without any actual sin?

16. At this person’s death, where does he go? Heaven or Hell?

17. If you say he goes to Hell because of Original Sin, please state why.

18. This very important especially those of you that listen to Rick and Bubba. Rick Burgess’ son at the age of 4 drowned in their swimming pool. They claim He is in heaven. But if the child is a sinner because of Original Sin, then some of you need to Call the Rick And Bubba show and tell him that his son is in hell. Okay?

19 Fire away.

20. PS His first 4 years were spent without benefit of any source of information outside the family. The Family chose to live life somewhat similar to the Amish except there was no access to religion.

 

[guanophore]

It is quite easy as you have shown to see what words mean and the context they are to be taken. Look carefully at the definition of
Full of Grace. In the defintion itself it says nothing of being sinless.

The problem here is that you do not have the “context” from which the words came. They are a reflection of the beliefs of the Apostles that were committed to writing. The Apostles believed and taught that grace is the opposite of sin, and that it is impossible to be in a state of grace while being soiled by mortal sin. Therefore, if one is “full of grace”, then one is free of mortal sins.

What do the Catholic lexicons say about this word?

How is that relevant? Catholic Lexicons are not the Source of the infallible Teaching of the Church. The HS is the Source.

The church fathers are not the same as a Greek lexicon. 2 different things.

Indeed. In the Fathers we can see the reflection of Sacred Tradition, whereas, we don’t always find this in a Lexicon.

There are a lot of excellent Greek lexicons and related sources on the Protestant side that are excellent in helping to understand the Scriptures.

I agree. Reading the Vine’s is what got me into seminary for more study. However, no matter how much one studies, if one separates the Scriptures for the Sacred Tradition which produced, them, one will inevitably go off track.

Do you think your leaders would have a problem with you being under the tutelage of an Atheist?

Our Leader teaches us that sometimes, the children of this world are wiser than the Sons of Light!

Can you read the NT in Greek?

Yes, and I must say, it is a joy. I wish my Latin and Hebrew were as good.

Would you happen to have any names of Protestant scholars who have lost their Scholarly integrity because of preconcieved notions and ideas?

This just seems like blantant attempt to derail another thread.

I think it is a very good question, but one that should go through the private messaging, or have it’s own thread.

Are you saying that in your research you have not found any Catholic scholars who have done any Greek word studies on the NT?

Off topic, again.

There is a danger of picking up the atheist’ beliefs if you are not careful.

One should always use wisdom in study.

No one is unbiased and Christians just as Catholic teachers can also teach Greek if they are qualified to do so.

Such a sentence construction is considered insulting here at CAF. It implies that Catholics are not Christians. It is one of the forum rules that everyone is required to respect our faith, even if they don’t agree with wht the Apostles taught.

What do you think the Atheist view is of what you believe is? Why doesn’t he-she believe in God? Have you spoken with him-her about this?

If you want to say this then you are going to have show that He did do it for Mary.

Where do the Scriptures say Mary was “proactively saved” from original sin?

This is what has come down to us through the Apostles. How can such a thing be shown to you, when you believe it does not exist? When the scriptures show the angel greeted her “Hail, Full of Grace”, this is what is meant. she was already saved from sin when the angel came to her.

How would you define worship? What are elements of worship?

Off topic. AGAIN! :dts:

I don’t know how you can say this? Here is the evidence that she was a sinner like all of us:

1. born of human parents who were sinners and inherits their nature

This is your opinion, not evidence.

“Full of Grace”, on the other hand, is evidence.

1. Luke 1:47-- acknowledges God as her Savior. She recognizes herself as a sinner and need of a Savior.

Actually, no, she recognizes that God is her savior, not that she sinned.

1. Romans 3:23, 5:12-- all have sinned
2. Romans 6:23-- wages of sin is death and Mary died

This might come a shock to you, ja4, but Jesus came to bring life, and to save us from our sins, and the wages of our sins. This is why He said, “even though he dies, yet shall he live”. When Paul speaks of the wages of sin, he is speaking about spiritual death, not physical death. If you wish to use that arguement, you will have to call Jesus a sinner too.

justasking4;4181111:

Do you think his-her eternal soul is at risk if they persist in their unbelief?

Off topic

 

[Good_Fella]

This might come a shock to you, ja4, but Jesus came to bring life, and to save us from our sins, and the wages of our sins. This is why He said, “even though he dies, yet shall he live”. When Paul speaks of the wages of sin, he is speaking about spiritual death, not physical death. If you wish to use that argument, you will have to call Jesus a sinner too.

Good point!

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: