Biblical Mary

[theefaith]

So there is only 1 throne of grace. And you say it is Mary’s throne. I suppose that throne would be in heaven?

rev 12:1

Jesus also is full of grace. Is there not a throne of grace for Jesus Christ?

Jesus is the source of grace by the merits of his life death and resurrection
And no He is at the right hand of the father on the great white throne
Rev 20:11

There is spoken of a throne, the throne of God, in heaven. Is this not the throne of grace, God being the one who sits on the throne?

Tong
R4563

 

[theefaith]

So there is only 1 throne of grace. And you say it is Mary’s throne. I suppose that throne would be in heaven?

Jesus also is full of grace. Is there not a throne of grace for Jesus Christ?

There is spoken of a throne, the throne of God, in heaven. Is this not the throne of grace, God being the one who sits on the throne?

Tong
R4563

connecting two scriptures
Heb 4:16 throne of “grace” and Lk 1:28 Mary is full of “grace”

 

[theefaith]

Luke 1:28

Tong
R4565

It says she is blessed why?

 

[theefaith]

Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

After a man or husband knew his woman or wife, will she still be a virgin?
(Not in the normal course of events no, but this ain’t normal, they had a spiritual virginal marriage to bring forth the virginal savior of the world, they sacrificed a lower good for a higher good the salvation of all men)

Adam knew his wife Eve. After that, whether Eve got pregnant or not, isn’t Eve no longer a virgin?

(yes, but you assume Joseph knew Mary and that’s not the case)

In my view, after the man knew his wife, the wife is no longer a virgin.

Did Joseph knew his wife Mary?

(no never not even thinkable,

Ezekiel 44:2 “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”

Song of Solomon 4:12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

(Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone?)

Matt 1:20 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.

(The Bible says only the Holy Ghost conceived in Mary)

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
(A son singular) (only Jesus is savior)

Lk 1:28 Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee!

Blessed art thou amongst all women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
(The fruit of Her womb is blessed and holy)

Lk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
(A son, singular)

Lk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
(This verse imply’s a vow of perpetual virginity, She refuses even the exalted dignity of mother of God and mother of our savior if it means violating Her vow of perpetual virginity)



Tong
R4567

 

[Tong2020]

Yes, the letter did establish doctrine. If it was already doctrine then why did Paul go to Jerusalem to discuss, argue and debate the matter with the church leaders and the other Apostles?

If it was already doctrine what was there to discuss, debate and argue about????

If it was already doctrine why did they have to write it down in a letter AND confirm the teaching by word of mouth (vs27) and send it to all the churches to read??? If it was already doctrine those individual church leaders would have read the letter and said, "Oh, we already knew that soooo why did they send us this letter".

Why did they need guidance from the Holy Spirit (vs28) to repeat an already established doctrine???????????????????????????? Can you seriously not see how your argument does not match up with what scripture says?


I already answered your questions...but I will answer them again: What was contained in the letter was NEW DOCTRINE since they didn't have any established doctrine on the matter. I have said this several times......

Yes, anything in Scripture is binding upon "all Christians....for all time". Do you not believe that?

I already explained, but I will repeat myself here.

If you will look closely and understand what the letter says, it is not to establish any doctrine, but to settle a problem concerning, not the whole church, but the Christians who are of the Gentiles only, and that only in Cilicia, Antioch, and Syria, giving instructions as contained in the letter. For apparently, such is not the case in the other churches. At least not yet or not yet in the knowledge of Paul at the time.

Also, if you read carefully v.1-21, you will come to know where the problem is coming from. And that it is not about doctrine that has yet to be settled or about a new doctrine. Rather, it is about a false teaching by those of the believing Jews, most likely those of the sect of the Pharisees. The false teaching was brought by men to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. In the letter, these men were said to have come from the Jerusalem church, but that the apostles (Paul excluded) who were of that church, gave no such commandment to those men to teach those things. So, there was no such doctrine. And if there was no such doctrine, the denial of that false teaching in the letter is not establishing a new doctrine. What there was in the letter is a denial of the false doctrine that those men were teaching.

<<<If it was already doctrine why did they have to write it down in a letter AND confirm the teaching by word of mouth (vs27) and send it to all the churches to read??? If it was already doctrine those individual church leaders would have read the letter and said, "Oh, we already knew that soooo why did they send us this letter".>>>

Why there was a dispute between these men and Paul together with Barnabas, of this thing that those men are teaching at Antioch, is evidence that Paul and Barnabas taught no such doctrine. And since those men were coming from the Jerusalem church, the brethren, even while Paul and Barnabas taught no such doctrine, that they could not now tell if such a doctrine is coming from the leading apostles in the church in Jerusalem. And so there arise the question. It was for these reason that they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

<<<Why did they need guidance from the Holy Spirit (vs28) to repeat an already established doctrine?>>>
The guidance from the Holy Spirit was not about establishing doctrine there, but about the resolution of the trouble created by those men who taught the false teaching. Read the letter.

<<<Yes, anything in Scripture is binding upon "all Christians....for all time".>>>

So, you are saying that what is contained in the letter is binding to all Christians and for all time. Okay. Before I comment about that, may I know your answer to my question “would you say that doctrines change or they should not?”

Tong
R4674

 

[Tong2020]

You agree with The Catholic Church on this matter.

But I only pray TO God through and in the name of Jesus Christ.

Tong
R4576

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes, because it is succession, where one takes the place of another. That is what succession is that I know.

There are not many “Popes” that succeeds Peter. So, there is also only 1 for the other 11 apostles. Just as the 11 apostles only had one to take the place of Judas Iscariot, to complete the twelve apostles. So, I thought the R.C. church followed what the 11 apostles did. But apparently they did not.

That is significant in that Jesus chose and sent only 12 apostles, not more than that. Jesus sent them to the people of Israel, the 12 tribes who were scattered in all the nations, to preach the gospel and and make disciples. Jesus chose Paul to be His apostle to the Gentiles.

If there are thousands of bishops as you confirmed, then there are many successors of the 11 apostles, which somehow messed up the line of succession regarding the 11. So that, the R.C.C. now could not say who are the successors of say John, James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, and so on.

But at least, you could tell the first successor of Paul, which you say is Timothy. Could you tell who is the successor of Paul today?

Also of interest, is if R.C.C. followed or not Jesus Christ in the sending of the 12 apostles to Israel and Paul to the Gentiles.

the church was very small at first like the mustard seed
But thousands are needed to minister to the spiritual needs of billions of people

Is that official RCC position? Or is that only your personal opinion?

My opinion regarding that is that, if it has to be succession, RCC should have followed the pattern of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is sending the 12 apostles to Israel and Paul to the Gentiles. The successors, like the 12 apostles and Paul, then would make as many disciples to help them in preaching the gospel to all peoples, planting churches where there is none yet, as the church grows in number until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. But of course, those are just my thoughts.

Tong
R4577

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
So there is only 1 throne of grace. And you say it is Mary’s throne. I suppose that throne would be in heaven?

Jesus also is full of grace. Is there not a throne of grace for Jesus Christ?

There is spoken of a throne, the throne of God, in heaven. Is this not the throne of grace, God being the one who sits on the throne?

connecting two scriptures
Heb 4:16 throne of “grace” and Lk 1:28 Mary is full of “grace”

Yes I can see that you connected two scriptures and made a conclusion.

But I do not make such connection as you do there. For while Lk.1:28 do say that Mary is full of grace, Jn.1:14 says that Jesus is full of grace. And in Hebrews 4:16, it neither say that the throne of grace is Mary’s or Jesus’. But with Hebrews being all about Jesus Christ, I would that it is that of Jesus’ or God’s and not Mary’s.

Besides, I know only of one who have a throne, that which is in heaven, and it is God’s.

Tong
R4578

 

[Tong2020]

It says she is blessed why?

Haven’t you read the answer in Lk.1:28?

And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”

Tong
R4579

 

[Ronald Nolette]

how is that idolatry?

Simply because Romanism plays word games abou tthewir worship of Mary and the saints and angels. Maybe on paper it is not worship, but anyone with one brain cell can see the veneration of Mary and all her titles and honors given her by romanists and knkow it is worship.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So your opinions count for nothing then.


You just don't quote scripture.
I went back to the first 5 pages of this thread.
You posted 6 posts and all just opinions - not a single scripture , relevant or not.

Well there are 62 pages . This is the third thread I have posted discussing with you and BOl and thee faith. I have posated th epertinent Scriptures as I did the ;last post abvout the fallacy of Mary's perpetual; virginity according to the bible without any opinion.

And my opinions if they cannot be backed up by Scripture are just as worthless as a popes opinion that is not grounded in Scripture.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Mary cooperated in the redemption by consenting to be the mo

scripture says she was blessed before becoming the mother of God Lk 1:28 and before she consented to be the mother of the redeemer Lk 1:38

Do you even know what that word blessed even means?????? she was blessed because she was chosen by god without any merit on her part.

 

[Marymog]

<<<Yes, anything in Scripture is binding upon "all Christians....for all time".>>>

So, you are saying that what is contained in the letter is binding to all Christians and for all time. Okay. Before I comment about that, may I know your answer to my question “would you say that doctrines change or they should not?”

Tong
R4674

First, let me share with you how I define doctrine in our conversation: Doctrine is a truth taught by The Church.

So to answer your question: Doctrines can't change because you can't change the Truth.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No it doesn't
You are very ignorant of Catholic teaching.

The Roman Catholic doctrine is defined in the second canon of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

In other words, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and in the process the bread and wine cease to exist, except in appearance. The ‘substance’ of the bread and wine do not remain.

I think you need to learn your own religion.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No we don't twist anything. We show the true meaning of scripture to those that are ignorant and can't understand English or Greek and are too proud to listen to the truth.

In other words, you change the meaning of the words to suit your Romanist theology. Same thing I said, just you using word games to make it sound more palatable

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Love the verses, but your opinions and allegorical redefinign the verses to make them mean Mary are still hereticl.

You just state they are so but do not give Scriptures to defend you saying they are so.

Show me one verse that says Mary is the fount of all grace.

Show me one verse that shows Mary is co - redeemer of men.

 

[Mungo]

The Roman Catholic doctrine is defined in the second canon of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

In other words, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and in the process the bread and wine cease to exist, except in appearance. The ‘substance’ of the bread and wine do not remain.

I think you need to learn your own religion.

You need to learn what an anathema means. And it doesn't mean someone is sent to hell.
Here is an explanation by Matt Slick, hardly a friend of Catholics but at least he tries to understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

We can see that the Bible uses the term to mean separated from Christ. If someone is separated from Christ, he is lost. But is this what is meant in Roman Catholic theology? Apparently not since a Catholic anathema is not a pronouncement of damnation (separation from Christ) but a declaration that an individual is excluded from the fellowship of the Roman Catholic church which includes denial of Communion and the Catholic sacraments.


So, when official Roman Catholic documents pronounce anathema it means that the person is not in right standing with their church, is not to take the sacraments, and might be under discipline. It is an excommunication and at the very least a very strong condemnation of the person's actions and/or beliefs as being against the Catholic Church.

 

[Mungo]

In other words, you change the meaning of the words to suit your Romanist theology. Same thing I said, just you using word games to make it sound more palatable

Wrong as usual.

 

[Mungo]

In other words, you change the meaning of the words to suit your Romanist theology. Same thing I said, just you using word games to make it sound more palatable

No, we show the true meaning of Scripture.

 

[Addy]

Matt Slick,

CARM..... I am familiar with that place... I think he is a Calvinist if I'm not mistaken.
Are we good you and me??