The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

One problem you have and others have to is that you are focusing on a single aspect of the OT Ark of the Covenant and transcending to the womb of a human being. If that human being correlates with every aspect of the OT ark of the Covenant, the you can have an apples to apples comparison, but not on a single aspect. I can go out on my husbands boat and claim I am on Noah’s ark; both ride on water and float, but there is no comparison.

Watch the video I posted,

youtube.com/watch?v=0aU18v-tl8I

and tell us how Mary is NOT the Ark of the New Covenant.

God bless!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Miguel,
Sorry I cannot quote to make things easier. My phone is a Smartphone but it takes takes after its owner and so it is not very smart. Anyway, “until” could not care less whether the clause is negated or affirmed. It does not matter. You rightly stated that “until” in the Greek literally means “until the time when” but the time has nothing to do with negation or afirmation. I would know. It took me 5 semesters of English 101. Now, I write quite a bit. “Until” means just that, “until”. There is no saying what happens after whether affirmed or negated.

Jesus had no siblings. Nice attempt without proof though. Who are Jesus’ brothers and sisters? I will pre-emptively tell you that I can respond sufficiently to your response because I already know who you are going to say.

And you did not answer my question about why they would have had relations AFTER the birth. I was not talking about during her pregnancy nor did I imply it.

I will answer your question in hopes that you will answer mine. They did not have normal relations because they were not a normal couple. Normal couples do not have God as their children.

Mary needed to be saved from sin. Jesus came to save us from sin, right? Mary was SUBJECT to sin but was preserved from it by the merits of Christ, her Son. Saying God applied merits beforehand is enough for the argument and is not contrary to Scripture. God is eternal, not temporal. He can do stuff like that. He sees all times all the time (if that even makes sense).

Saying that Jesus did not sin because He is God is SO wrong. He went through temptations just like us. As a matter of fact, He knew infinitely better than us how hard it is to resist temptation (a la C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity). The more one resists, the harder it gets. If His sinlessness is BECAUSE He was God, it would be impossible for us to resist sin just once. Jesus was sinless through His free will. He could have sinned but did not. I know you will not do this but I can see about 20 ways one can throw this out of proportion. I can answer them all but still… It would just waste time.

How is “full of grace” a mistranslation? My Bible actually says, “favored one.” I personally like “favored one” better because it fits better in context and works better with the Marian doctrine of the Assumption. “Full of grace” emphasizes the Immaculate Conception part. Either way, both of these back up Catholic doctrine. Unless they are both mistranslations which I am sure crossed your mind. If that is true, “saved by faith alone and not by works” is a mistranslation.

I am just curious though. All Scriptures aside, what is the big deal about the doctrines of Mary: veneration, honor, intercessions, virginity, sinlessness, the Assumption, etc…? Non-biblical reasons… We are currently engaged in the biblical arguments. I have yet to see why some people are disgusted by the doctrines of Mary. I am not saying you are disgusted but you do seem passionately against it. Moondweller and Calvin are the most disgusted by it than I have ever seen.

 

[EricFilmer]

One problem you have and others have to is that you are focusing on a single aspect of the OT Ark of the Covenant and transcending to the womb of a human being. If that human being correlates with every aspect of the OT ark of the Covenant, the you can have an apples to apples comparison, but not on a single aspect. I can go out on my husbands boat and claim I am on Noah’s ark; both ride on water and float, but there is no comparison.

As I stated to Miguel, I honestly don’t see what the issue is here. The title “Ark of the Covenant” is a poetic comparison between Mary and the Old Testament Ark. Your example is a poetic comparison between your husband’s boat and Noah’s ark. So what? The Catholic Church has no doctrines which are directly founded upon Mary’s title as Ark of the Covenant. For example, we don’t say that the reason she is immaculately conceived is specifically because she is called Ark of the Covenant. If no Catholics ever called her this, there would still be a Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Such a title we give her need not be anything more than a poetic comparison. There is an actual scriptural basis for calling Mary the Ark of the Covenant, as others have demonstrated in this thread with posts and links, but there doesn’t even need to be. I really fail to see why any Christian should object to Mary being called the Ark of the Covenant for the simple fact that her womb was the dwelling place for God among humans, as was the Ark of the Old Covenant. If Protestants don’t want to call her that, then fine. But are you saying that Catholics ought not to?

 

[EricFilmer]

If you make a claim such as that you must first define what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not, then you must prove the claim is false and not on this thread since this thread has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is relevant to this thread because it is constantly being held up as the standard for validating doctrine by the original poster as well as others.

That is what the Catholic church teaches; that is fine - you are Catholic right? The Scripture doesn’t teach that.

And that quote just makes you the latest person to use a Sola Scriptura statement. If you make statements like “The Scripture doesn’t teach that”, and a Catholic responds with “So?” then the concept of Sola Scriptura is naturally going to be addressed as part of this thread’s discussion.

But in terms of your suggestion of handling the topic of Sola Scriptura in another thread, that has just happened in a new thread started by one of this thread’s participants:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=515287

 

[pablope]

How I am treating her as blessed? Mary doesn’t live here anymore. I count her as blessed because of what was spoken TO her and what was fulfilled THROUGH her two thousand years ago. For this reason Mary herself said all generations will “count” her blessed. Mary’s soul exalted the Lord, and her spirit rejoiced in God her Savior (Lk 1:46,47). She didn’t exalt herself nor rejoice in herself. She said from now on all generations will count me blessed, not from now on all generations will exalt me.Which “judgment” is that?

MD…you said…Mary doesn’t live here anymore.…But she is very much alive in heaven…or do you believe she is not in heaven? And Jesus is very much alive there too…and can hear what you are saying about her mother, don’t you think?

When I asked you “voluntarily”…I was asking, if through the goodness of your heart, have you done anything at all in your lifetime, to show to Mary, as the mother of Jesus, who bore gave birth to Him, watched Him grow, watched him crucified and suffer for our sins…how you are accounting, showing your appreciation for her blessedness? Have you, in your lifetime, even offered a prayer of thanks for what she did. what she endured? Or this beyond you?

*Quote:
It is also said that treat others as you would like them to treat you…so if what you are stating about Mary, how you are treating her…would you not expect Jesus to treat you the same you are treating her Mother? What I mean is, would you not expect your words to come back to you at the time of your judgement?

**Which “judgment” is that? ***

You final judgement…at death, at the second coming. See post # 116. But here they are:

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Just merely professing you know Christ, as stated here, will not get you to heaven. You need to do something more, or you understand this verse to say something else.

or this verse:
**Matthew 16:27 **
27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

“…according to his works”…so whatever you did here on earth, will not be separated from you.

Here is also from Revelation: Revelation 14:13 (King James Version)

13And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; **and their works do follow them.
**

So, may I ask you then…if you have not shown any appreciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary…yet you continue to blaspheme against her, twist the words about her in the Gospels (especially Luke)…don’t you think Jesus does not see this? And as per the verses above…since you are doing this things to His mother here on earth…it would be logical to say that you would do the same thing** if **you get to heaven, continue your blasphemies…do you think Jesus would bring you to heaven so that you can continue defiling His mother?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Jenny,
Saying the Church contradicts Scripture does not make it true as most non-Catholics think. You must provide proof. Mary calling Jesus a Savior does not mean she was a sinner. It just means she needed to be saved. In this case, it was from sin. We all fell into the hole from sin but God brought us back out of the hole. Mary was kept by God from falling into it. Hence, she still needed a Savior. Mary said, “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” This seems to imply that she had a savior already. That Savior was God.

At least, you admit your understanding of Catholic teaching is limited. Most non-Catholics will not admit that much. Anyway, the Church Magisterium authoritatively teaches FROM Sacred Tradition, which is written (Scriptures) and oral. It is not either/or; it is both/and. We need something to teach (Magisterium) and we need something to teach from (Sacred Tradition). It would certainly be impossible for them both to be divine authorities if they were in conflict. You are absolutely right! BUT they are not in conflict. You have the burden of proof.

And this discussion thread does not prove that the Church has conflicts with Scripture. It just proves that non-Catholics are vehemently against Catholic teaching and Catholics will defend (albeit sometimes in a harsh manner)their Church. The only conflict in this discussion is between Catholics and non-Catholics, not between the Church and the Bible. I would not defend the Church if she contradicted the Bible… And I was atheist. As an atheist, I always knew one of three religions were right: Atheism, Catholicism or Judaism. Now I have complete certitude that the Church is right. People can deny all they wish. I do pray that Protestants come home soon though. Mary’s intercessions have helped me bring some Protestants to the Church through RCIA. Mary helps you too. Marian dogmas are not just a bunch of words that fit with another bunch of words (Bible); they are a part of life. She is there for us, Catholics and non-Catholics. That, my friend, is the Truth. Take it or leave it. Either way, she will still be praying for you up in Heaven, along with your loved ones (and everybody else’s) who are up there praying for you. Why is it so bad that souls are intercessing for us in heaven? Especially Mary?!

 

[moondweller]

Based on everything I have said in this post, there is no way that your statement that Mary did not give her consent to the plan of God can be correct. If you disagree then you will have to clearly refute my reasoning herein. “Clearly refuting”, means a point-by-point rebuttal of my material in this post, as well as the relevant material indicated from Posts #109 & 144.

It’s quite simple, Eric. Nowhere does Gabriel ask for Mary’s consent. You keep stumbling over the simplicity of it all.Luke 1:45 "And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord."

 

[moondweller]

Have you, in your lifetime, even offered a prayer of thanks for what she did. what she endured? Or this beyond you?

My prayers are addressed to my Father in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ, per instruction by Christ Himself. Nowhere am I instructed to pray to Mary. Mary will be rewarded, at the bema seat of Christ, for what she did. Her works will be tested and those which prove to have value she’ll be rewarded. Those which do not she will lose reward (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

You final judgement…at death, at the second coming.

I won’t stand at a “final judgment” at Christ’s second coming, according to the Scriptures. In fact, there is no “final judgment” at Christ’s second coming. However, I am exempt from any “judgment” having to do with condemnation (Jn. 3:18; 5:24; Rom. 8:1).

.

 

[kepha1]

A general comment about this discussion; after reading through part of this thread it really boils down to the question of divine authority.

As it so often does.

The Catholic church or the Scripture because of the contradictions; both cannot be true. Mary called Jesus her Savior before He was born; and I do not think anyone would dare dispute that the biblical Savior saves from the penalty of sin and thus calling Jesus Savior is an admission of being a sinner. So it is a matter of choice as to whom one deems as a divine authority.

Perhaps, but I think it’s a matter of enlightenment as to whom one deems as a human authority, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

My very limited understanding of Catholic teaching is that their teaching is at an equal level or “authority” with Scripture, but that is impossible if the two are in conflict, which is obvious from this discussion that there exists conflict.

Catholic teaching is not at an equal level or “authority” with scripture. That implies two different authorities. The Church is the servant of the scriptures. If the Catholic Church had no authority to preserve, proclaim, teach and interpret the scriptures, then the scriptures would become subservient to lexicons, concordances, and interpretation by mere human scholarship. That is a form of Pelagianism (a works alone heresy).

Should we trust the interpretations of Augustine or Jimmy Swaggart, the teachings of the Council of Ephesus or the pronouncements of Dave Hunt? Should we be guided by the prayer and worship practices of Christians in the first three centuries who were the closest to the New Testament Church or the prayer-and-worship routines of thousands of denominations?
Nowhere in scripture is the authority to teach given to unordained individual believers. But some Protestants have to believethat because if they cannot be infallible, they think that no one else can be either. Submission to authority really becomes a question of humility, doesn’t it?

 

[moondweller]

One way would be for God to simply create for Himself a human nature free from the effects of Adam’s sin. We might call this the “immaculate conception” of Jesus in the womb of Mary.

Or, as Scripture calls Him, “the Last Adam,” the “second man.” The progenitor of a whole new race of man “in Him.”

If only the pure can beget the pure, then why not posit that Anna, Mary’s mother, was also immaculately conceived? After all, “how can purity be brought forth from impurity” (your words)? But then if Anna had to be sinless in order give birth to a sinless Mary, then Anna’s mother had to be sinless too and so on.

You Catholics say that God intervened at the conception of Mary, but there’s nothing in scripture to support that claim and a lot indeed that contradicts it. Why not just posit an intervention at Jesus’ conception?

 

[EricFilmer]

It’s quite simple, Eric. Nowhere does Gabriel ask for Mary’s consent. You keep stumbling over the simplicity of it all.Luke 1:45 "And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord."

Obviously, MD, neither I nor any of the Catholics in this discussion find it simple at all.
And seeing as you cannot provide ONE credible Protestant Scripture scholar or theologian to back up your interpretation (as I have repeatedly challenged you to do) tells me that probably no one else finds this simple either.

So once again, if you want to give a credible rebuttal to my stance, you will need to give a clear, point-by-point refutation of the material I presented in Post #186:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7301714&postcount=186

Therein I concretely demonstrated that Gabriel has to be seeking Mary’s consent, and that your interpretation of this passage from Luke cannot be correct.
Simply ignoring my entire post and throwing off a statement like, “You keep stumbling over the simplicity of it all” is not going to cut it.

As far as I am concerned, you are the one who is stumbling over the simplicity of it all.
But, unlike you, I have actually taken the time and energy to prove it!
And I proved it in Post #186.
If your position is “all so simple” and is a representation of the truth, you should have no trouble actually giving a proper rebuttal to each item in Post #186.

The fact that you keep dodging my questions in general speaks volumes.
As a matter-of-fact, I am amazed by all the excuses you come up with as to why you are unable or unwilling to give straight answers to my questions.

After all, what have I heard from you so far about this and other questions I asked you?

“Oh, I could refute that, but if I do I’ll get banned by the moderators”
(Post #106: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7294141&postcount=106

“I don’t have to answer that question, because it’s mundane reasoning.”
(Post #117: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7295243&postcount=117

“I don’t have to answer your list of questions because it won’t change anything.”
(Post #168: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7300547&postcount=168

And now…

“I don’t have to answer your questions because you keep stumbling over the simplicity of it all.”

Well, for future use, here is a webpage that you will, no doubt, find useful:
rd.com/clean-jokes-and-laughs/33-lame-excuses/article164876.html

 

[pablope]

My prayers are addressed to my Father in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ, per instruction by Christ Himself. Nowhere am I instructed to pray to Mary. Mary will be rewarded, at the bema seat of Christ, for what she did. Her works will be tested and those which prove to have value she’ll be rewarded. Those which do not she will lose reward (1 Cor. 3:10-15)I won’t stand at a “final judgment” at Christ’s second coming, according to the Scriptures. In fact, there is no “final judgment” at Christ’s second coming. However, I am exempt from any “judgment” having to do with condemnation (Jn. 3:18; 5:24; Rom. 8:1).

.

Nowhere am I instructed to pray to Mary.

I asked, **out of the goodness of you heart. **You have free will, right? And has anyone who said thank you to Mary ever gone to hell? Or has Jesus rewarded them greatly?

And you did not answer if you believe Mary is not alive and is not in heaven.

MD…there is going to be a final judgement. Those verses you cite are taken out of context, as usual.

What is puzzling is you state Mary is going to be judged still and you will not be? Aren’t you then putting yourself above Jesus’s mother?

And what makes you think you are exempt? Isn’t this being self-righteous and being self-arrogant? Aren’t these sins?

This verse states nothing unclean can enter heaven:
Revelation 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Can you absolutely say you are sinless, perfect?

Here is the final judgement as per Matthew 25:31-46 (Keep in mind those verses I quoted you while reading):

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So, keeping in mind the verses I quoted you, where do you think your works or lack of it, will you be told to go-the sheep or the goat?

 

[po18guy]

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

There’s way too much evidence in the New Testament that Jesus had step siblings as my blog article points out.

Is it not blatantly obvious that, to oppose the revealed truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity - which has zero practical effect upon the Gospel message - is simply to oppose the Church which Christ founded and replace it with one formed by man’s ego, which Christ did not found?

 

[moondweller]

Obviously, MD, neither I nor any of the Catholics in this discussion find it simple at all.

Because you simply refuse to receive the simplicity of the text. All your arguments are constructed on and around extrabiblical sources.

So once again, if you want to give a credible rebuttal to my stance, you will need to give a clear, point-by-point refutation of the material I presented in Post #186:

I’ll up that. I’ll give you two: (1) Gabriel never asks Mary, “Will you…?” (2) Luke 1:45 “And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

There you have it, my friend. Straight from the original source. Now dance around it all you want but you can’t change it just because you don’t like it. You might upload ten pages of posts but you won’t change those two simple facts. It’s not “blessed is she who consented…” (while God waited in the wings holding His breath in anticipation), but rather, “blessed {is} she who believed…what had been spoken to her.”

Gabriel is a “messenger” (angel) of God, not a liaison.

 

[paul_c]

It’s quite simple, Eric. Nowhere does Gabriel ask for Mary’s consent. You keep stumbling over the simplicity of it all.Luke 1:45 "And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord."

Moondweller,
You claimed in a post yesterday that you beleived Mary had free will. So, why wouldn’t that free will apply here? Was she or was she not free to accept the role of Mother of Jesus? From her own words from scripture, isn’t it clear that she took on this role willingly and that it was not forced on her? No where do we see her complain, do we?

As for Gabriel asking for Mary’s consent - you are right that scripture does not record it being asked as a question. But that doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t consent. Its like someone telling you that you won the lottery. You still need to accept it, even though it is assumed by the messenger that acceptance is a foregone conclusion.

 

[paul_c]

A general comment about this discussion; after reading through part of this thread it really boils down to the question of divine authority. The Catholic church or the Scripture because of the contradictions; both cannot be true. Mary called Jesus her Savior before He was born; and I do not think anyone would dare dispute that the biblical Savior saves from the penalty of sin and thus calling Jesus Savior is an admission of being a sinner. So it is a matter of choice as to whom one deems as a divine authority. My very limited understanding of Catholic teaching is that their teaching is at an equal level or “authority” with Scripture, but that is impossible if the two are in conflict, which is obvious from this discussion that there exists conflict.

Jenny4Him,
Have you ever studied how scripture came to be? Afterall, Jesus didn’t hand out his written teachings to the Apostles, did he.

If you were to do an indepth study, you would find that Jesus taught orally and not with the written word. After Jesus ascended into heaven, the Apostles continued to pass on his teachings by word of mouth. They referred to the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septugint, to demonstrate how Jesus fulfilled the prophesies Over time, what they taught orally began to be written down. Most scholars believe that this was done first through letters between the Apostles and their congregations to address specific doctrinal and church practice issues and then ultimately the gospels and acts, and finally revelations were written. These documents, and others such as St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, were used as the liturgy of the word in the Ancient mass. The can be demonstrated with the apologetic letters of St. Justin Martyr, in the mid 100s. There continued to be debate within the Church for the first 350 years of the church’s existance about what writings were appropriate to share with the congregation during mass. Finally, in 382 following church councils in Africa on the issue, Pope St. Damascus established the Bible Canon and enlisted St. Jerome to translate it into Latin. His work, called the Vulgate, was the official Bible translation for over 1000 years.

Now, you may ask, what was the criteria used to decide what went into the Bible Canon in 382 AD. there wre three: One, the books had to be universally recognized, they had to be of Apostolic origin, and they had to be consistent with acknowledged Catholic teaching.

What I have written above is not controversial. It is acknowledged by any reputable Bible scholar, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

Now to say that the Catholic Church’s teachings are inconsistent with Scripture is to be ignorant of the origin of scripture. What you see as inconsistencies are actually misinterpretations of what scripture actually says. So the argument really becomes, who has the authority to interpret scripture. The Catholic Argument is simple: The chruch that wrote, compiled and authorized the Bible is the definitive authority on how to interpret it. When Protestants argue against this, they are effective arguing " We understand scripture better than the authors". This is an arugment that can not be won with an objective judge…

 

[moondweller]

**And you did not answer if you believe Mary is not alive and is not in heaven.**Mary was a believer, hence she’s in the presence of Christ with all the rest of those who “died in Christ,” now waiting for the resurrection of the body (Phil. 3:20-21) and translation from life to LIFE of those who are still alive at that time.

MD…there is going to be a final judgement. Those verses you cite are taken out of context, as usual.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,
You claimed in a post yesterday that you beleived Mary had free will. So, why wouldn’t that free will apply here?

It does. She had the free will to believe what was spoken TO her or not (compare with Lk. 1:20).

Was she or was she not free to accept the role of Mother of Jesus? From her own words from scripture, isn’t it clear that she took on this role willingly and that it was not forced on her? No where do we see her complain, do we?

Her acceptance was her belief in the words spoken TO her by Gabriel. However, “consent” is not in this context.

As for Gabriel asking for Mary’s consent - you are right that scripture does not record it being asked as a question. But that doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t consent.

You’re presenting a contradiction, Paul. You say you accept what is not there and then rationalize that it is.

Its like someone telling you that you won the lottery. You still need to accept it, even though it is assumed by the messenger that acceptance is a foregone conclusion.

“Accept” is not “consent.” The message would be that they won the money. Not asking for that person’s consent to the lottery. The “consent” would be implied at the time that person first purchased the ticket.

But, Paul, Mary didn’t buy a lottery ticket with the prize being mother of Messiah. Your example is not congruent to the Scriptural account of that historical event. Like EricFilmer you want to build your argument on everything but the Scriptural account itself. There’s a reason for that.

 

[Jenny4Him]

There are no contradictions between Catholic doctrine and scripture…only misunderstandings of one or the other by those who THINK such contradictions exist.

If you say so; but that is obviously not true…but have it your way. God won’t see it as you do-I am certain of that. You were not able to refute the fact that Mary called Jesus her Savior while in her womb; which I can’t imagine anyone who calls themselves a Christian could dispute that the Savior mentioned in the Bible is the One who saves the lost sinner. Nor can anyone dispute that Mary called Jesus her Savior. So you have an obvious contradiction and where there is one there are usually several, which I have a feeling that I will soon discover this.

 

[StTommyMore]

If you say so; but that is obviously not true…but have it your way. God won’t see it as you do-I am certain of that. You were not able to refute the fact that Mary called Jesus her Savior while in her womb; which I can’t imagine anyone who calls themselves a Christian could dispute that the Savior mentioned in the Bible is the One who saves the lost sinner. Nor can anyone dispute that Mary called Jesus her Savior. So you have an obvious contradiction and where there is one there are usually several, which I have a feeling that I will soon discover this.

I see that you have a problem with authority. You choose to follow yourself, claiming your own interpretation as supreme, rather than humbly submitting to the hierarchical structure Jesus gave to us, the Catholic Church.