The Goddess Man Has Made

Selene · Dec 2, 2012

Axehead said:
Immaculate Conception - Sinless Life

If one undertakes a thorough study of the Old and New Testament they will find not find any information about Mary's birth, her parents, her childhood and most anything else. The Early Church Apostles and Saints knew nothing of Mary's origins, mainly because there are no such references in any of their writings. The very first known appearance of the idea that Mary was sinless is traced to the 4th century when Augustine was bishop of Hippo. (This is a matter of historical fact) A sect known as the Pelagians, whose chief spokesman was Julian of Eclanum, believed that Mary the mother of Jesus had been born without sin and was, therefore, free from the power of the "demons. Augustine defended the clear Biblical doctrine that all mankind inherits a sin nature from the original sin of Adam. Augustine further pointed out to the heretic Julian of Eclanum that if Mary the mother of Jesus had been freed from the power of the demons, it was not the result of her natural birth, but the result of her being born-again by the grace of God (John's Gospel, 3rd chapter). That should have put to rest for all time any suggestions that Mary's conception was in some way special or different. (Augustine Through the Ages, an Encyclopedia, p. 516)

However, in the 13th century, 800 or so years after Augustine, the Immaculate Conception matter was to enjoy a renewal of support. But this "support" would not come from Thomas Aquinas, (the famous doctor of the Roman Catholic Church). Aquinas emphatically declared that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was conceived with the stain of original sin, as are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Aquinas addressed the matter this way

"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. If she would have been not been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ." (Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 204)

You will notice if you look at the Catholic Catechism that not a single early Church father is cited as a reference for the Immaculate Conception doctrine. Neither are there any scriptures cited to support it. There are some quotes of early Church patriarchs, but none of these quotes have anything to do with Mary's supposed Immaculate Conception.

Many less than astute Catholic faithful can be led to believe that this is a very old doctrine and one that has come down through the ages as an accepted "Tradition," even one that can be traced back to apostolic times. But if it is, in fact church "Tradition," founded on the doctrines held by the early Church, all evidence for this is conspicuous by its absence from the 1994 Catechism. What is found in the 1994 Catechism are the conclusions of pope's and councils, all of which are far removed from the Christian Church founded by Jesus.

With no record of support for it in Scripture or among the early Church fathers and with very strong opposition to it on the part of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, how could the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ever have become an article of faith of the Roman Catholic Church?

Axehead

Mary was conceived without original sin because she was the New Ark of the Covenant. In the Old Testament, God dwelled among His chosen people in the Ark of the Covenant. According to the Old Testament, God specifically told the Israelites how to build the Ark of the Covenant. God instructed that the Ark must be of the purest gold inside and out because that was His dwelling place (See Exodus 25-27). When the Ark was completed, the glory of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (See Exodus 40:34-35 and Numbers 9:18, 22). God wanted to dwell among His people in a PERFECT container made of the purest gold inside and outside.

Well, Mary's womb became the dwelling place of Jesus (God's only begotten Son) for nine months. And since Mary's womb was to be Jesus' dwelling place for nine months, how much more would God want His Son to have a perfect dwelling place?? Just as God had a perfect dwelling place made of the purest and finest gold inside and outside, how much more would God want His Son to also have a dwelling place that is also of the purest without any blemish of sin. We never teach that Christ dwelled in a sinful, filthy vessel. We teach that with God, nothing is impossible. He can create a New Eve.

dragonfly · Dec 2, 2012

Mary was conceived without original sin because she was the New Ark of the Covenant.

That's another Roman Catholic myth without any biblical foundation. Jesus Christ was the new Ark of the Covenant because all the promises of God, which are also commandments to His children (those who have been born from above of the will of the God the Father, through the Holy Spirit) in Him are 'yea and amen'.

In the Old Testament, God dwelled among His chosen people in the Ark of the Covenant.

Not quite so. God does not live in a box now, and never did.

According to the Old Testament, God specifically told the Israelites how to build the Ark of the Covenant. God instructed that the Ark must be of the purest gold inside and out because that was His dwelling place (See Exodus 25-27). When the Ark was completed, the glory of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (See Exodus 40:34-35 and Numbers 9:18, 22). God wanted to dwell among His people in a PERFECT container made of the purest gold inside and outside.

Exodus 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Well, Mary's womb became the dwelling place of Jesus (God's only begotten Son) for nine months. And since Mary's womb was to be Jesus' dwelling place for nine months, how much more would God want His Son to have a perfect dwelling place??

Selene, the whole gospel message is about God's Son leaving behind His perfect dwelling place in heaven, and coming to earth where sin has corrupted everything, from mankind - the crown of God's creation - Adam - down.

Jesus was so different from His mother, that scripture says of Him,

'9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb:
thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly.'

Jesus is not talking about Mary having divine qualities. He is delineating between God the Father, and her natural humanity.

Just as God had a perfect dwelling place made of the purest and finest gold inside and outside, how much more would God want His Son to also have a dwelling place that is also of the purest without any blemish of sin. We never teach that Christ dwelled in a sinful, filthy vessel.

And that's where you go wrong. You should teach the truth which will make your people free, instead of this kind of pure fiction.

We teach that with God, nothing is impossible.

In which case, God was perfectly capable of keeping His Son pure, while He was inside Mary's womb.

The physical connection between a mother and a child in her womb, is at atomic and molecular level physically, and not at all spiritually - unless the child is descended from two humans.

Jesus Immanuel Messiah, having God as His spiritual Father, was not corrupted by the Sin which entered the world through Adam. Romans 5:12

Romans 1: '... separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace...'

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes ... '

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but to us which are saved it is the power of God.

2 Corinthians 4: '... as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. [Note: Paul is confessing that he had been dishonest, crafty, and had handled the word of God deceitfully.]

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

5 For we preach ... Christ Jesus the Lord ... For God,

who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, [Just as Jesus, the Light of the world, was born out of the darkness of a fallen human womb]

has shined in our hearts, [same principle]

to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, [same principle]

that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. [same principle]

He can create a New Eve.

Yes, He is creating a new Eve - the Church.

And before you tell me that's Mary, just remember than in another thread you are pointing to Christ as the Bridegroom of His Church, the Bride.

I hope you are not going to tell me Christ the Lord of glory is going to marry His deceased human mother. We might as well be in Egypt if you do.

Rex · Dec 2, 2012

Selene said:
Mary was conceived without original sin because she was the New Ark of the Covenant. In the Old Testament, God dwelled among His chosen people in the Ark of the Covenant. According to the Old Testament, God specifically told the Israelites how to build the Ark of the Covenant. God instructed that the Ark must be of the purest gold inside and out because that was His dwelling place (See Exodus 25-27). When the Ark was completed, the glory of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (See Exodus 40:34-35 and Numbers 9:18, 22). God wanted to dwell among His people in a PERFECT container made of the purest gold inside and outside.

Well, Mary's womb became the dwelling place of Jesus (God's only begotten Son) for nine months. And since Mary's womb was to be Jesus' dwelling place for nine months, how much more would God want His Son to have a perfect dwelling place?? Just as God had a perfect dwelling place made of the purest and finest gold inside and outside, how much more would God want His Son to also have a dwelling place that is also of the purest without any blemish of sin. We never teach that Christ dwelled in a sinful, filthy vessel. We teach that with God, nothing is impossible. He can create a New Eve.

One of the most evident and glaring signs indicating who the real father of RCC is. The demi god of the RCC "Mary"
Isis and Horus --> Mary and Jesus --->> all thats changed is the names the beliefs and teaching remains the same.

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
http://www.newadvent...then/07674d.htm

If that is true then she doesn't qualify as a "seed" of Eve, the woman. In that you disqualify her from the promise of Gen 3:15
To follow the next step we see this can be seen as denying Jesus came in the flesh of Eve threw Mary.
1 John 2:18
2 John 1:7

Hebrews describes Jesus in the flesh. Heb 4:15 NKJV "therefore he had to made like his brothers in every respect" And the Word became flesh,
Hebrews 4:14-17 ----->"therefore he had to made like his brothers in every respect"
Hebrews 10:20

Hippolytus (3rd Century)
TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST.
25. Then he says: "A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass." And who are these but the Romans? which (kingdom) is meant by the iron--the kingdom which is now established; for the legs of that (image) were of iron. And after this, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part is iron and part clay, mixed together?

And mystically by the toes of the feet he meant the kings who are to arise from among them; as Daniel also says (in the words), "I considered the beast, and lo there were ten horns behind it, among which shall rise another (horn), an offshoot, and shall pluck up by the roots the three (that were) before it."

And under this was signified none other than Antichrist, who is also himself to raise the kingdom of the Jews. He says that three horns are plucked up by the root by him, viz., the three kings of Egypt, and Libya, and Ethiopia, whom he cuts off in the array of battle. And he, after gaining terrible power over all, being nevertheless a tyrant, shall stir up tribulation and persecution against men, exalting himself against them. For Daniel says: "I considered the horn, and behold that horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, till the beast was slain and perished, and its body was given to the burning of fire."
26. ...
27. As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey.
28. The golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexander's time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst; the stone that smites the earth and brings judgment upon the world was Christ.

Foreigner · Dec 2, 2012

Selene said:
Mary was conceived without original sin because she was the New Ark of the Covenant. In the Old Testament, God dwelled among His chosen people in the Ark of the Covenant. According to the Old Testament, God specifically told the Israelites how to build the Ark of the Covenant. God instructed that the Ark must be of the purest gold inside and out because that was His dwelling place (See Exodus 25-27). When the Ark was completed, the glory of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (See Exodus 40:34-35 and Numbers 9:18, 22). God wanted to dwell among His people in a PERFECT container made of the purest gold inside and outside.

Well, Mary's womb became the dwelling place of Jesus (God's only begotten Son) for nine months. And since Mary's womb was to be Jesus' dwelling place for nine months, how much more would God want His Son to have a perfect dwelling place?? Just as God had a perfect dwelling place made of the purest and finest gold inside and outside, how much more would God want His Son to also have a dwelling place that is also of the purest without any blemish of sin. We never teach that Christ dwelled in a sinful, filthy vessel. We teach that with God, nothing is impossible. He can create a New Eve.

-- What unmitigated drivel.
You are using man's reasoning to justify a belief that is not supported by Scripture or the teachings of any of the early churches for the first several hundred years.
The opinion that Mary was born without original sin is an opinion born of man.

Catholics use what Paul said about the "early traditions" to justify beliefs such as this, but when you ask them WHAT specific early tradition and HOW it supports a belief such as this, they go silent, change the subject, or simply criticize you directly.

As I said in my last post:

"I have pointed out where people such as yourself have REPEATEDLY said that the ancient traditions Paul eluded to but never explained somehow support the beliefs held by Catholics that aren't supported by Scripture.

Yet, when pressed, they cannot provide ONE SINGLE SOLITARY EXAMPLE of the traditions Paul was speaking of, let alone how it dovetails in with their Catholic beliefs."

Still waiting....

And I gave yet another example of Unsupported Catholic Overreach:

"They continue to make claims such as Mary being a 'chief mediator' between God and man even though Paul himself said that was not the case:
"For there is one God, and there is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," - 1 Tim. 2:5

In order for Mary to be fulfilling or 'co-fulfilling' the role that they say she fills, Scripture would have to be wrong. What Paul said would have to no longer be true.

I don't think that is that is the case for a God who says, "I am the same yesterday, today, and forever.""

Still waiting on their "explanation" for this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ as well....

.

Raeneske · Dec 2, 2012

Doesn't the Word state that man will not be punished for the sins of his fathers? In other words, while their course of action may affect the child, the child does not take on that father's sins, he has his own.

Like, we don't take Adam's sin, in which he ate the forbidden fruit. We do take the course of his action, which would be the sinful nature, but other than that, we have no sins of Adam added onto our list, of sins we committed.

dragonfly · Dec 2, 2012

Doesn't the Word state that man will not be punished for the sins of his fathers? In other words, while their course of action may affect the child, the child does not take on that father's sins, he has his own.

Like, we don't take Adam's sin, in which he ate the forbidden fruit. We do take the course of his action, which would be the sinful nature, but other than that, we have no sins of Adam added onto our list, of sins we committed.

Hi Rae,

To your first paragraph, I think you have Ezekiel 18 in mind. This is a separate issue (being also that it pertained during the Old Covenant) from that in your second paragraph, which Paul refers to in Romans 5:12. We were 'in Adam' when we died. (We were in his loins when he died.)

By believing into Jesus Christ, we become sons of God - of the same 'generation' as Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit. Matt 1:1 Please compare Matt 1:1 with Genesis 1:26, 27, with Genesis 5:1 - 3. Scripture is careful to establish this difference very early in its narrative.

Selene · Dec 2, 2012

Foreigner said:
-- What unmitigated drivel.
You are using man's reasoning to justify a belief that is not supported by Scripture or the teachings of any of the early churches for the first several hundred years.
The opinion that Mary was born without original sin is an opinion born of man.

Catholics use what Paul said about the "early traditions" to justify beliefs such as this, but when you ask them WHAT specific early tradition and HOW it supports a belief such as this, they go silent, change the subject, or simply criticize you directly.

As I said in my last post:

"I have pointed out where people such as yourself have REPEATEDLY said that the ancient traditions Paul eluded to but never explained somehow support the beliefs held by Catholics that aren't supported by Scripture.

Yet, when pressed, they cannot provide ONE SINGLE SOLITARY EXAMPLE of the traditions Paul was speaking of, let alone how it dovetails in with their Catholic beliefs."

Still waiting....

And I gave yet another example of Unsupported Catholic Overreach:

"They continue to make claims such as Mary being a 'chief mediator' between God and man even though Paul himself said that was not the case:
"For there is one God, and there is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," - 1 Tim. 2:5

In order for Mary to be fulfilling or 'co-fulfilling' the role that they say she fills, Scripture would have to be wrong. What Paul said would have to no longer be true.

I don't think that is that is the case for a God who says, "I am the same yesterday, today, and forever.""

Still waiting on their "explanation" for this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ as well....

.

I'm only stating our reasons why we believe what we believe. so that you and others can understand the Catholic position. I never said that you have to believe it. Now, you know why we never teach that Christ was born from sin because we don't believe that Mary had any kind of sin. Christ never had anything to do with sin. Of course, YOU can always teach that Christ was born from sin because Mary was a sinful, filthy vessel.

Also, the Catholics never said that Mary is the "Chief Mediator." I have no idea where you got that notion. Any Catholic on this board can tell you that we don't teach that Mary is the Chief Mediator. We have always said that she is a "Co-Mediatrix." I think you got the words mixed around so I am correcting you.

Raeneske · Dec 2, 2012

Selene said:
I'm only stating our reasons why we believe what we believe. so that you and others can understand the Catholic position. I never said that you have to believe it. Now, you know why we never teach that Christ was born from sin because we don't believe that Mary had any kind of sin. Christ never had anything to do with sin. Of course, YOU can always teach that Christ was born from sin because Mary was a sinful, filthy vessel.

Also, the Catholics never said that Mary is the "Chief Mediator." I have no idea where you got that notion. Any Catholic on this board can tell you that we don't teach that Mary is the Chief Mediator. We have always said that she is a "Co-Mediatrix." I think you got the words mixed around so I am correcting you.

Hi Selene,

We hear the Catholic position, it's just very contrary to scripture. While it's difficult, and sometimes it may feel like Catholics are always attacked, please here us out:

A lot of Catholic doctrines are defended by "Enticing words of men's wisdom". And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (1 Corinthians 2:4 KJV)

Christ was born, is the same sinful body that you and I possess. He had to, else he could not have been the perfect Saviour, who was made of our likeness. He had no advantage over us as human beings. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Philippians 2:7 KJV). He is Divine, yet he sacrificed it all, to die for us. He took part in sinful flesh. The difference between Him and us, is that he chose NOT to sin.For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15 KJV) There lies the difference. Think about how hard it is for us not to sin sometimes. He did that, through His entire life. It cannot be preached that he came with a nature different than ours: to say that is to deny that he came in the flesh. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3 KJV) Jesus came in our sinful flesh, and won. Sin did not overcome the Perfect man, no matter what was thrown His way.

As for Mary being "Co-mediatrix" here me out. That woman is just like you. She's human, and she was born with sinful flesh, and she saved. She is in precious need of the Saviour. She was just highly favored, and she was a woman of God. Like other greats in the Bible, she held no advantage over anyone. It's like John the Baptist, who was specially chosen from God. Now, she is far blessed above any woman, she birthed the Saviour, Amen. But she is not a "Co-mediatrix", any more than the Carpenter, or her mother that birthed her. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5 KJV). Mary is exalted far too highly in this church, enough for it to be considered worship. As the Bible says, you have one mediator. There is not one and a half, or a co-mediator. She is not co-mediatrix, anymore than your parents, who may have taughr you of the Saviour.

dragonfly · Dec 2, 2012

Christ was born, is the same sinful body that you and I possess. He had to, else he could not have been the perfect Saviour, who was made of our likeness.

This is not precisely what scripture says, brother. Romans 8:3 - He was in the likeness of sinful flesh. This could be a reference to our dulness. Some people believe that Adam and Eve were gilded with light - or covered in glory - because Adam was a kind of son of God; and the reason they hid after the fall, was because they saw themselves in a different 'light'. Whatever you think of that idea, Jesus Christ did not have 'sinful' flesh in the way that we do. But, His body was 'like' our body - else how would we understand He was one of us, and able to be our substitute in death?

He was the logos made flesh. That is one of His perfections. Hebrews 7:25, 26, Hebrews 4:15.

Selene · Dec 2, 2012

Raeneske said:
Hi Selene,

We hear the Catholic position, it's just very contrary to scripture. While it's difficult, and sometimes it may feel like Catholics are always attacked, please here us out:

A lot of Catholic doctrines are defended by "Enticing words of men's wisdom".

Christ was born, is the same sinful body that you and I possess. He had to, else he could not have been the perfect Saviour, who was made of our likeness. He had no advantage over us as human beings. He is Divine, yet he sacrificed it all, to die for us. He took part in sinful flesh. The difference between Him and us, is that he chose NOT to sin. There lies the difference. Think about how hard it is for us not to sin sometimes. He did that, through His entire life. It cannot be preached that he came with a nature different than ours: to say that is to deny that he came in the flesh. Jesus came in our sinful flesh, and won. Sin did not overcome the Perfect man, no matter what was thrown His way.

As for Mary being "Co-mediatrix" here me out. That woman is just like you. She's human, and she was born with sinful flesh, and she saved. She is in precious need of the Saviour. She was just highly favored, and she was a woman of God. Like other greats in the Bible, she held no advantage over anyone. It's like John the Baptist, who was specially chosen from God. Now, she is far blessed above any woman, she birthed the Saviour, Amen. But she is not a "Co-mediatrix", any more than the Carpenter, or her mother that birthed her. Mary is exalted far too highly in this church, enough for it to be considered worship. As the Bible says, you have one mediator. There is not one and a half, or a co-mediator. She is not co-mediatrix, anymore than your parents, who may have taughr you of the Saviour.

Hello Raeneske,

Peace be with you. The difference between Catholics and Christians (Protestants) is that Catholics follow both Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition that was handed down to us. Christians only follow what is in scripture. There are things not recorded in the Bible, but was traditionally passed down to the Church, which we still practiced today. Mary being born without sin was one of those Apostolic Traditions passed down to us from the Apostles. We even know the names of Mary's parents because that was also passed down to us.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

There are many things that Jesus did that were not recorded, but that that does not mean these things are not important. For us, everything that our Lord did was important including the things that were not recorded in the Holy Bible.

Our belief is that Christ was not born without any sin and did not commit any personal sins. When God first created man, man did not have any sins. Adam and Eve were never created with sin in them. Everything that God created was good and there is nothing evil in His works. Sin only came when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God through their own free will. This is what we teach. Christ was born in that same human nature. Human nature never had anything to do with sin because human nature was created in the image and likeness of God since the beginning. Thus, Christ's birth never had anything to do with sin. He was born in a true human nature.....the same nature when God first created Adam and Eve. This is why we call Mary the "New Eve." She is not just the "New Ark of the Covenant." She is also the "New Eve" who gave birth to the "New Adam" (Jesus Christ).

We do not teach that Christ was born in a sinful body because human nature never anything had to do with a sinful body in the first place. God did not create man in a sinful nature....He created man in His image and likeness. Christ was born in a human body that was created in God's image and likeness, which had nothing to do with sin. This is man's true human nature. The Original Sin that was passed down to the descendants after Adam and Eve sinned did not touch Mary because God saved her from falling in the pit of sin. So, yes, even Mary needed a savior and she called God her Savior when she sang her praises in the Magnificant.

Catholics believe that Mary is human like all of us and in need of a savior. But she is unlike any of us, because she was the one chosen by God to carry His Son. She was the one who carried the Second Person of the Godhead in her womb and raised Him up. No other woman on earth did that. She was the mother of Jesus, who is God. No other woman can also love Christ the way Mary loved Her Son, and any mother can understand this.

Christ obeyed all the commandments including the fourth that stated "Honor thy mother and father." Christ fulfilled this commandment more than any son on earth. He was the perfect son. He glorified His Father, who is God, and He also glorified His mother Mary. By following this commandment perfectly "Honor thy mother and father" it was Christ who placed Mary above us. We, on the other hand, are followers of Christ and imitate all the things that He does because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The only reason we honor and respect Mary is because Christ also honored and respected her, and Christ is who we imitate.

In Christ,
Selene

Raeneske · Dec 2, 2012

Selene said:
Hello Raeneske,

Peace be with you. The difference between Catholics and Christians (Protestants) is that Catholics follow both Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition that was handed down to us. Christians only follow what is in scripture. There are things not recorded in the Bible, but was traditionally passed down to the Church, which we still practiced today. Mary being born without sin was one of those Apostolic Traditions passed down to us from the Apostles. We even know the names of Mary's parents because that was also passed down to us.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

There are many things that Jesus did that were not recorded, but that that does not mean these things are not important. For us, everything that our Lord did was important including the things that were not recorded in the Holy Bible.

Our belief is that Christ was not born without any sin and did not commit any personal sins. When God first created man, man did not have any sins. Adam and Eve were never created with sin in them. Everything that God created was good and there is nothing evil in His works. Sin only came when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God through their own free will. This is what we teach. Christ was born in that same human nature. Human nature never had anything to do with sin because human nature was created in the image and likeness of God since the beginning. Thus, Christ's birth never had anything to do with sin. He was born in a true human nature.....the same nature when God first created Adam and Eve. This is why we call Mary the "New Eve." She is not just the "New Ark of the Covenant." She is also the "New Eve" who gave birth to the "New Adam" (Jesus Christ).

We do not teach that Christ was born in a sinful body because human nature never anything had to do with a sinful body in the first place. God did not create man in a sinful nature....He created man in His image and likeness. Christ was born in a human body that was created in God's image and likeness, which had nothing to do with sin. This is man's true human nature. The Original Sin that was passed down to the descendants after Adam and Eve sinned did not touch Mary because God saved her from falling in the pit of sin. So, yes, even Mary needed a savior and she called God her Savior when she sang her praises in the Magnificant.

Catholics believe that Mary is human like all of us and in need of a savior. But she is unlike any of us, because she was the one chosen by God to carry His Son. She was the one who carried the Second Person of the Godhead in her womb and raised Him up. No other woman on earth did that. She was the mother of Jesus, who is God. No other woman can also love Christ the way Mary loved Her Son, and any mother can understand this.

Christ obeyed all the commandments including the fourth that stated "Honor thy mother and father." Christ fulfilled this commandment more than any son on earth. He was the perfect son. He glorified His Father, who is God, and He also glorified His mother Mary. By following this commandment perfectly "Honor thy mother and father" it was Christ who placed Mary above us. We, on the other hand, are followers of Christ and imitate all the things that He does because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The only reason we honor and respect Mary is because Christ also honored and respected her, and Christ is who we imitate.

In Christ,
Selene

John 20:30-31 - And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

There are many things not written, which Christ did. But according to John, the things that are written, are so that you may believe. In other words, what is written is enough. If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, and if they will not hear the New Testament, the Gospels then they will not believe, plain and simple. God's Word is enough, it has given you the threshold, of which the world will either accept or deny.

I cannot believe that the church passed down something, outside of the scriptures, many traditions. Why? Because any person can make this claim. The fact that the Catholic Church makes this claim, does not change the fact, that they are subject to the Holy Scriptures. When they are in contradiction with the scriptures, routinely I am told that the scriptures are not the sole authority of faith. If you were to bring something in, how can you contradict the scriptures? That is a sure way to see how much light is truly in that person, church, group, etc. So, if we find a contradiction between the Church and the Word of God, there is a problem, whether Sola Scriptura exists within that church or not. A contradiciton is a contradiction.

This is the problem. To say that Christ was born in a nature different than humans now have, is to state that He did not come in our flesh. He was made in our likeness, and was tempted in all points that we are. Christ did not sin, but that does not mean that he did not posses the nature of our fallen state. God did not prohibit His son from having that nature. Whether we had anything to do with sin in the first place is not the point. The point is, death is passed onto all the descendants of Adam. Jesus Christ was not exempt from that. However, he chose not to sin, and thus, the grave could not hold Him. It had no power over Him. If Christ did not posses our fallen nature, which we have, he could not have been tempted in all points like we have. It would have done nothing. He may have been "tempted" but he would not have been tempted like we have. The example Jesus left was that through trust in the Divine, we can have power to overcome the natural body, the same body which He himself overcame.

There is no such thing as original sin. You are not born with a sin. You are born sinful, in the sinful nature, in a sinful state. You are more inclined to sin, but you have yet to sin. Why? Because as God said, you will not be punished for the sins of your fathers. (Ezekiel 18:20). The soul that sins, it shall die. As a baby you have not sinned.

Mary is only unlike us, in that she carried the Saviour to term, birthed Him, and got to love and protect Him. She is blessed above all women. But that is it. She is not in heaven waiting to hear our prayers, or for 50 million human beings praying to her. While no other woman had this privelegde, nor can understand this, this does not mean we are to pick up the instrument through which God had his job done through. She is blessed, I can accpet that. However, there is no reason to exalt her to such unbelievable heights, that would make some of us sick just looking at. No, I do not say this to offend you, I say this because there is absolute horror in seeing a mere woman (though highly favored) exalted above levels which she was even given.

Christ manifested His Father's name, and not the name of His mother. Blessed are they who keep the Word of God (Luke 11:28), and hear it. While we respect our mother and father, do we glorify, exalt or mother and father? You can be obediant to your parents, you can honor them, without exalting them to unneccesary levels. Christ honored His mother, He did not exalt her, nor did He ask His disciples to exalt her. Take care of her? Absolutely. But He did not give us any prayers we are to pray to her, or tell us that she is a co-mediatrix, especially since the Bible says Christ is the only mediator. Christ also honored His earthly father, which would be called a Step-Dad in these times. Why aren't rosaries prayed to Him, as I'm %100 sure He respected this man, and gave Him a father's respect. Or what about His "cousins" as the Catholic Church calls them. He showed more love and respect to them, than we have to any man or woman on this planet. Where are the rosaries with them?

epostle1 · Dec 2, 2012

John 20:30-31 - And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

There are many things not written, which Christ did. But according to John, the things that are written, are so that you may believe. In other words, what is written is enough. If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, and if they will not hear the New Testament, the Gospels then they will not believe, plain and simple. God's Word is enough, it has given you the threshold, of which the world will either accept or deny.

You misunderstand. Catholics hold scriptures to be materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. Formal sufficiency is not in the bible. That is your tradition.

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.
The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition dont exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.
source

I cannot believe that the church passed down something, outside of the scriptures, many traditions. Why? Because any person can make this claim. The fact that the Catholic Church makes this claim, does not change the fact, that they are subject to the Holy Scriptures. When they are in contradiction with the scriptures, routinely I am told that the scriptures are not the sole authority of faith. If you were to bring something in, how can you contradict the scriptures? That is a sure way to see how much light is truly in that person, church, group, etc. So, if we find a contradiction between the Church and the Word of God, there is a problem, whether Sola Scriptura exists within that church or not. A contradiciton is a contradiction.

Then give an example of a contradiction. You have no idea what a Tradition is, but have been taught that they must be wrong and you are not thinking for yourself.

This is the problem. To say that Christ was born in a nature different than humans now have, is to state that He did not come in our flesh. He was made in our likeness, and was tempted in all points that we are. Christ did not sin, but that does not mean that he did not posses the nature of our fallen state. God did not prohibit His son from having that nature. Whether we had anything to do with sin in the first place is not the point. The point is, death is passed onto all the descendants of Adam. Jesus Christ was not exempt from that. However, he chose not to sin, and thus, the grave could not hold Him. It had no power over Him. If Christ did not posses our fallen nature, which we have, he could not have been tempted in all points like we have. It would have done nothing. He may have been "tempted" but he would not have been tempted like we have. The example Jesus left was that through trust in the Divine, we can have power to overcome the natural body, the same body which He himself overcame.

Click to expand...

Those truths originated with the Catholic Church that you borrowed.

There is no such thing as original sin. You are not born with a sin. You are born sinful, in the sinful nature, in a sinful state. You are more inclined to sin, but you have yet to sin. Why? Because as God said, you will not be punished for the sins of your fathers. (Ezekiel 18:20). The soul that sins, it shall die. As a baby you have not sinned.

Click to expand...

That proves you don't know what original sin is.

Gen. 2:17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die. Adam and Eve ate of the tree, and they spiritually died. Some Protestant communities ignore or deny the reality of original sin. But if there is no original sin, then we do not need a Savior either. The horrors of our world testify to the reality of original sin.

Gen. 3:14-19 - God's punishment for eating of the tree was cursing satan, increasing women's pain in childbirth, and condemning man to toil and labor for his whole life.

Job 14:1,4 - man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? All humans are afflicted with original sin, and this includes babies as well. This is why the Catholic Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years.

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam's sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam.

Rom. 5:14 - death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam's original sin. This is a mystery we do not fully understand, but we must all acknowledge our propensity toward evil and our need of God.

Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism.

Rom. 5:19 - by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God.

1 Cor. 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die. In Christ, the new Adam, all now may live.

Eph. 2:1-3 - we were all dead through sin and all lived in the passions of our flesh until Christ came to save us.

Mary is only unlike us, in that she carried the Saviour to term, birthed Him, and got to love and protect Him. She is blessed above all women. But that is it.

Click to expand...

There is more but isn't that enough in itself?

She is not in heaven waiting to hear our prayers, or for 50 million human beings praying to her. While no other woman had this privelegde, nor can understand this, this does not mean we are to pick up the instrument through which God had his job done through. She is blessed, I can accpet that. However, there is no reason to exalt her to such unbelievable heights, that would make some of us sick just looking at. No, I do not say this to offend you, I say this because there is absolute horror in seeing a mere woman (though highly favored) exalted above levels which she was even given.

Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. God committed "absolute horror" by exulting Mary first. Read Luke 1.

Christ manifested His Father's name, and not the name of His mother. Blessed are they who keep the Word of God (Luke 11:28), and hear it. While we respect our mother and father, do we glorify, exalt or mother and father? You can be obediant to your parents, you can honor them, without exalting them to unneccesary levels. Christ honored His mother, He did not exalt her, nor did He ask His disciples to exalt her. Take care of her? Absolutely. But He did not give us any prayers we are to pray to her, or tell us that she is a co-mediatrix, especially since the Bible says Christ is the only mediator. Christ also honored His earthly father, which would be called a Step-Dad in these times. Why aren't rosaries prayed to Him, as I'm %100 sure He respected this man, and gave Him a father's respect. Or what about His "cousins" as the Catholic Church calls them. He showed more love and respect to them, than we have to any man or woman on this planet. Where are the rosaries with them?

Click to expand...

This is just thoughtless Mary-bashing because you cannot defend sola scriptura, a man made tradition.

Rex · Dec 2, 2012

kepha31 said:
This is just thoughtless Mary-bashing because you cannot defend sola scriptura, a man made tradition.

So now believing the bible becomes a man made tradition.
Let me see what shall I believe? traditions that contradict the bible or traditions I have no divinely inspired evidence for Hmmm.

I think I'll stick with the bible.

He's not Mary bashing BTW he's tradition bashing.

Same as you bash the tradition of the bible

epostle1 · Dec 2, 2012

Rex said:
So now believing the bible becomes a man made tradition.

Click to expand...

Believing the Bible and sola scriptura are not the same things. Believing the bible means believing the Traditions and the Magisterium and the Bible; they are inseparable. Believing in "bible alone" has wrecked havoc on all of Protestantism. THAT is a man made tradition, not "believing the bible".

Let me see what shall I believe? traditions that contradict the bible or traditions I have no divinely inspired evidence for Hmmm.

There are no Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church that contradict the Bible. That lie has been repeated so often some gullible people start to believe it.

Rex said:
I think I'll stick with the bible.

Click to expand...

No, you will stick to whatever group agrees with you.

Rex said:
He's not Mary bashing BTW he's tradition bashing.

Same as you bash the tradition of the bible

Click to expand...

The Authority of Scripture is a Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. That, and many others, pre-date the canon of the New Testament. Tradition, the Magisterium, and Scripture all worked in harmony to bring us the Bible in the first place. Sola scriptura was unheard of and would never have worked then and it doesn't work now.

Rex · Dec 2, 2012

And just what good is the bible when only the magic magi's of the magisterium are the only ones you believe can interpret it?

Catholic sure work over time to minimize the value of the bible don't they.

And glorify men that have funny wardrobes

There are no Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church that contradict the Bible. That lie has been repeated so often some gullible people start to believe it.

we just got done pointing out a few about Mary FYI

Raeneske · Dec 2, 2012

kepha31 said:
You misunderstand. Catholics hold scriptures to be materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. Formal sufficiency is not in the bible. That is your tradition.

The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition dont exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.
source

Then give an example of a contradiction. You have no idea what a Tradition is, but have been taught that they must be wrong and you are not thinking for yourself.

Those truths originated with the Catholic Church that you borrowed.

That proves you don't know what original sin is.

Gen. 2:17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die. Adam and Eve ate of the tree, and they spiritually died. Some Protestant communities ignore or deny the reality of original sin. But if there is no original sin, then we do not need a Savior either. The horrors of our world testify to the reality of original sin.

Gen. 3:14-19 - God's punishment for eating of the tree was cursing satan, increasing women's pain in childbirth, and condemning man to toil and labor for his whole life.

Job 14:1,4 - man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? All humans are afflicted with original sin, and this includes babies as well. This is why the Catholic Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years.

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam's sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam.

Rom. 5:14 - death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam's original sin. This is a mystery we do not fully understand, but we must all acknowledge our propensity toward evil and our need of God.

Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism.

Rom. 5:19 - by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God.

1 Cor. 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die. In Christ, the new Adam, all now may live.

Eph. 2:1-3 - we were all dead through sin and all lived in the passions of our flesh until Christ came to save us.
There is more but isn't that enough in itself?

You are contradicting yourself. God committed "absolute horror" by exulting Mary first. Read Luke 1.

This is just thoughtless Mary-bashing because you cannot defend sola scriptura, a man made tradition.

You know, sometimes I think you're being really arrogant. Why in the world, would you say something like this:

You have no idea what a Tradition is, but have been taught that they must be wrong and you are not thinking for yourself.

For the last time, I have my head screwed on tightly. I consciously make my own decisions. When I am not sure of my decisions, I am conscious enough to ask someone else. My decisions are not always the right ones. But the accusations you make like that one above, are seriously annoying. Must I remind you that you also told me after the very first post I made in a topic about Catholics, you accused me of being filled with pride? Stop with the accusations already. I get it, you're upset that someone, or many people, have something negative to say about the Catholic Church. But this is no reason to throw accusations like this around. It doesn't prove your point. It actually helps disprove your point, because you have to throw a jab in there.

Okay, back to business.

First, I challenge your assertion with the statement "Scriptures are a building block". If John 20 has told you, that what is written, so that you may believe, why am I to believe that they are only building blocks? See, John says that there are not enough books in the world to contain what Jesus has done. But he also tells you, what is written, is written down so that you could believe. But John said, "It is enough".

Isaiah 8:20 refers to scripture itself, by stating that if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them. Do you trust any source that contradicts the Catholic Church? You would look upon them, as having no spiritual light within them, that they are spiritually desititute. That's the way protestants look at the Bible. If we see a contradiction, we know there is no light within the speaker. When a Roman Catholic contradicts the Word of God, only one can be right. The Word of God, or the Catholic. It's the same way if a Catholic hears someone contradict their teachings. Only one can be right. The person who contradicted them, or the Church. That is the way it is looked at. So again, if a Roman Catholic is preaching heresy, if they are contradicting the Word of God, who are we supposed to believe? I mean, are you really going to believe someone who absolutely contradicts you? You may, if you have eyes to see, and ears that hear - meaning, if you bother to look into what they're saying.

As for original sin - the arguement "if there is no original sin, there is no need for a saviour"... goes to far. If there was no SIN then there would be no need for a Saviour. But there is sin. So, there IS a need for a Saviour. There is no such thing as original sin. There is sinful nature, but you are not born, inheriting the sin of your fathers.

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Who shall die? The soul that sins. The soul, the person, that sins, transgresses the law, it shall die. Has a baby seriously sinned, that you have to baptize it? Before you answer that question, read the next part. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither the father bear the iniquity of the son. So, if I sin, my son does not bear my sin. He may have to deal with the consequences, but he does not judged for my sin. I sin, I get the blot, not my son. If my son sins, I do not bear his iniquity. If the son chooses to go on a murder spree, who gets the blot? Me or my son? The son! The same thing happened with Adam and Eve. Adam ate the forbidden fruit, that was his sin. In heaven, is it registered that "Okay, this baby gets a blot for eating from the tree of knowledge"? No. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 18:19 - Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

If the son has done what he is supposed to, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. No one carries the blots of their ancestors. No one. You may be affected by it, but the person who sins shall die.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Shall we be put to death for Adam's sin? Or for our own?

Deuteronomy 24:16 - The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Right here is rather blunt. The father shall not be put to death for the children - and the children shall not be put to death because of the father. Every man shall be put to death for their own sin.
Job does mention about bringing a clean thing out of the unclean thing. But since when did this mean, that we take on the sins of our fathers, when the Bible blatantly says you do not take on that sin. If we have the blot of Adam, why is it only Adam? Why do we not have the blot of generations and generations of human beings. Why only that sin? God has given the same message continually throughout scripture. That is - if you sin - you will die. Plain and simple.

Proverbs 5:22 - His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.

For your own sins, you shall die. Not the sins of others.

God greatly blessed Mary, and I admitted to that. I also admitted she is blessed among woman. But she was not glorified the way the Roman Catholic Church glorifies her. Luke 1 shows that Mary was blessed among woman. She was also highly favored. But I know who is greater.

Matthew 11:11 - Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7:28 - For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

We go from Catholic-bashing to Mary-bashing. No one is "Mary-Bashing" simply because we do not agree with your stance. We can firmly disagree with you without "bashing" anyone.

Selene · Dec 2, 2012

Raeneske said:
John 20:30-31 - And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

There are many things not written, which Christ did. But according to John, the things that are written, are so that you may believe. In other words, what is written is enough. If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, and if they will not hear the New Testament, the Gospels then they will not believe, plain and simple. God's Word is enough, it has given you the threshold, of which the world will either accept or deny.

I cannot believe that the church passed down something, outside of the scriptures, many traditions. Why? Because any person can make this claim. The fact that the Catholic Church makes this claim, does not change the fact, that they are subject to the Holy Scriptures. When they are in contradiction with the scriptures, routinely I am told that the scriptures are not the sole authority of faith. If you were to bring something in, how can you contradict the scriptures? That is a sure way to see how much light is truly in that person, church, group, etc. So, if we find a contradiction between the Church and the Word of God, there is a problem, whether Sola Scriptura exists within that church or not. A contradiciton is a contradiction.

This is the problem. To say that Christ was born in a nature different than humans now have, is to state that He did not come in our flesh. He was made in our likeness, and was tempted in all points that we are. Christ did not sin, but that does not mean that he did not posses the nature of our fallen state. God did not prohibit His son from having that nature. Whether we had anything to do with sin in the first place is not the point. The point is, death is passed onto all the descendants of Adam. Jesus Christ was not exempt from that. However, he chose not to sin, and thus, the grave could not hold Him. It had no power over Him. If Christ did not posses our fallen nature, which we have, he could not have been tempted in all points like we have. It would have done nothing. He may have been "tempted" but he would not have been tempted like we have. The example Jesus left was that through trust in the Divine, we can have power to overcome the natural body, the same body which He himself overcame.

There is no such thing as original sin. You are not born with a sin. You are born sinful, in the sinful nature, in a sinful state. You are more inclined to sin, but you have yet to sin. Why? Because as God said, you will not be punished for the sins of your fathers. (Ezekiel 18:20). The soul that sins, it shall die. As a baby you have not sinned.

Mary is only unlike us, in that she carried the Saviour to term, birthed Him, and got to love and protect Him. She is blessed above all women. But that is it. She is not in heaven waiting to hear our prayers, or for 50 million human beings praying to her. While no other woman had this privelegde, nor can understand this, this does not mean we are to pick up the instrument through which God had his job done through. She is blessed, I can accpet that. However, there is no reason to exalt her to such unbelievable heights, that would make some of us sick just looking at. No, I do not say this to offend you, I say this because there is absolute horror in seeing a mere woman (though highly favored) exalted above levels which she was even given.

Christ manifested His Father's name, and not the name of His mother. Blessed are they who keep the Word of God (Luke 11:28), and hear it. While we respect our mother and father, do we glorify, exalt or mother and father? You can be obediant to your parents, you can honor them, without exalting them to unneccesary levels. Christ honored His mother, He did not exalt her, nor did He ask His disciples to exalt her. Take care of her? Absolutely. But He did not give us any prayers we are to pray to her, or tell us that she is a co-mediatrix, especially since the Bible says Christ is the only mediator. Christ also honored His earthly father, which would be called a Step-Dad in these times. Why aren't rosaries prayed to Him, as I'm %100 sure He respected this man, and gave Him a father's respect. Or what about His "cousins" as the Catholic Church calls them. He showed more love and respect to them, than we have to any man or woman on this planet. Where are the rosaries with them?

Hello Raeneske,

Kepha explained the Catholic position very well. Everything that God does is important to us. The fact that it is not written down does not make it less important. Everything that God does is important. We never go by Sola Scriptura (by Bible alone) because it is unbiblical. It was the Church that wrote the Holy Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and only the Church can accurately interpret the Holy Bible.

For example, if I wrote this one sentence: I didn't say that you stole money. Two thousand years in the future somone found this sentence I wrote. This one sentence can be interpreted in four different ways:

1. I didn't SAY that you stole money........means that someone else said it.

2. I didn't say that YOU stole money.......means that I said it was someone else.

3. I didn't say that you STOLE money......means that I actually said "borrowed" rather than stole.

4. I didn't say that you stole MONEY.....means that it wasn't money that was stolen but something else.

As you can see, this one sentence can be interpreted in four different ways, so how much more the Bible. With Catholics, it is only the Church and the Magisterium who has the authority to interpret scripture because the Church has existed for 2000 years and is the pillar and foundation of truth just as it says in the Holy Bible. The tradition of passing down the correct interpretation has always been in the Church. If people were allowed to make their own private interpretations, one would come up with thousands of different interpretations. And that is what has happened to the Christians. This is why there are over 30,000 different Christian sects. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has only one interpretation of scripture that all Catholics adhere to.

Also, Original Sin refers to the sin committed by Adam and Eve. This is why we call it "original sin." It is not a sin committed by us, but by the original parents....Adam and Eve. This sin had a great impact on their descendants and on the whole creation. Mankind was never born with a sinful nature. Our human nature is in the image and likeness of God. Sin only came into the world when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God.

The difference between Christians and Catholics is that Catholics believe that man was made pure white...white as snow because we were created in God's image and likeness. But when we sin, sin is the filth that covers us. When Christ died on the cross and we are washed in His blood, Christ's blood washed away the filthiness of sin from us so that the snow white underneath can be seen. In other words, Christ's blood truely took away the sins from us. When Christ died and took away our sins....we mean just that. Our sins are taken away.

The Christian or Protestant viewpoint is different. You believe that man was born with a sinful nature. And when the blood of Christ washes you, Christ's blood only covers you and makes you white....but the sinful nature is still underneath and hasn't been taken away. You teach that Christ covers your sins and makes you white as snow, but your sinful nature remains.

"Honor thy mother and father" is God's commandment, which Christ fulfilled perfectly. The Hebrew word for "Honor" is glorify. Christ was the perfect Son. He did not glorify His Father and forget about His mother. If He did that, He would be violating the Commandment. By following this commandment perfectly, Christ placed His own mother above all of us. And all we do is imitate Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Also, the word "worship" is not the same for Christians and Catholics. Christians associate the word "worship" with "prayer". For Catholics, we associate the word "worship" with "sacrifice." For a Catholic, we are called to be "martrys" for Christ.....to die for Him just as He died for us.

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.

In Christ,
Selene

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

Selene said:
Hello Raeneske,

Kepha explained the Catholic position very well. Everything that God does is important to us. The fact that it is not written down does not make it less important. Everything that God does is important. We never go by Sola Scriptura (by Bible alone) because it is unbiblical. It was the Church that wrote the Holy Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and only the Church can accurately interpret the Holy Bible.

For example, if I wrote this one sentence: I didn't say that you stole money. Two thousand years in the future somone found this sentence I wrote. This one sentence can be interpreted in four different ways:

1. I didn't SAY that you stole money........means that someone else said it.

2. I didn't say that YOU stole money.......means that I said it was someone else.

3. I didn't say that you STOLE money......means that I actually said "borrowed" rather than stole.

4. I didn't say that you stole MONEY.....means that it wasn't money that was stolen but something else.

As you can see, this one sentence can be interpreted in four different ways, so how much more the Bible. With Catholics, it is only the Church and the Magisterium who has the authority to interpret scripture because the Church has existed for 2000 years and is the pillar and foundation of truth just as it says in the Holy Bible. The tradition of passing down the correct interpretation has always been in the Church. If people were allowed to make their own private interpretations, one would come up with thousands of different interpretations. And that is what has happened to the Christians. This is why there are over 30,000 different Christian sects. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has only one interpretation of scripture that all Catholics adhere to.

Also, Original Sin refers to the sin committed by Adam and Eve. This is why we call it "original sin." It is not a sin committed by us, but by the original parents....Adam and Eve. This sin had a great impact on their descendants and on the whole creation. Mankind was never born with a sinful nature. Our human nature is in the image and likeness of God. Sin only came into the world when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God.

The difference between Christians and Catholics is that Catholics believe that man was made pure white...white as snow because we were created in God's image and likeness. But when we sin, sin is the filth that covers us. When Christ died on the cross and we are washed in His blood, Christ's blood washed away the filthiness of sin from us so that the snow white underneath can be seen. In other words, Christ's blood truely took away the sins from us. When Christ died and took away our sins....we mean just that. Our sins are taken away.

The Christian or Protestant viewpoint is different. You believe that man was born with a sinful nature. And when the blood of Christ washes you, Christ's blood only covers you and makes you white....but the sinful nature is still underneath and hasn't been taken away. You teach that Christ covers your sins and makes you white as snow, but your sinful nature remains.

"Honor thy mother and father" is God's commandment, which Christ fulfilled perfectly. The Hebrew word for "Honor" is glorify. Christ was the perfect Son. He did not glorify His Father and forget about His mother. If He did that, He would be violating the Commandment. By following this commandment perfectly, Christ placed His own mother above all of us. And all we do is imitate Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Also, the word "worship" is not the same for Christians and Catholics. Christians associate the word "worship" with "prayer". For Catholics, we associate the word "worship" with "sacrifice." For a Catholic, we are called to be "martrys" for Christ.....to die for Him just as He died for us.

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.

In Christ,
Selene

Selene,

We cannot believe the church of Rome, because it is a bunch of men. They can make any claims they want to, about traditions which Catholics, or Christians may have never heard about. Sola Sciptura is important, and it is found within the Bible. The constant claim that is unscriptural is very mind-boggling because constantly evidence has been presented for Sola Scriptura. Isaiah 8:20 is plain. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. If someone comes up with a claim, or a tradition that contradicts the Bible, the Bible clearly says they the one speaking is spiritually desitute. Any tradition brought to me, or anyone else cannot be accepted upon a mere whim. It has to be accepted within scriptures, to be accepted of God. If someone contradicts the Bible, are you really going to believe them? If they oh so clearly contradict the Bible, do they have any room to say "Scripture is not the Final Authority"? No.

It's just like if the Orthodox Church comes up and claims apostolic succession, and that they are the church of Christ. And they claim to have the correct traditions. Who do I believe? The Roman Man, or the Orthodox man? I'll tell you what I'll do. Give me the Word of God, and I'll see if either of them are telling the truth. And if either of them contradict the Word of God - cut them loose. Sola Scriptura is defended repeatedly throughout the Bible, but Isaiah 8:20 is the most beautiful way for it to be put. If you say something contrary to the Bible, you are spiritually destitue.

2 Corinthians 2:14 - 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.

The Roman Catholic Church says they can only interpret the Bible. Some men may say only they can interpret the Bible. Another Church may say they can only interpret the Bible. Whose right?

None of them.

The Bible, interprets the Bible. We know this commonly about prophecy, but in every single stance, the Bible interprets itself.

Isaiah 28:9-10 - Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

2 Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

For example, the fact that eternal fire, everlasting fire, and fire and brimstone are the same thing, is found by looking into scripture:

Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Luke 17:29 - But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Matthew 25:41 - Then 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:

Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Did I come with a tradition, or did I let the Bible explain to you about fire and brimstone, eternal fire, and everlasting fire. Was I the one that interpretted the Bible, or did I merely post 4 points (there are more) to show you that scripture defined itself. Such is the case with all doctrine. Such is the case with everything within scripture. No human being, or bunch of human beings, or bunch of churches interpret the Word of God. It interprets itself. And it does it quite sufficiently too. Sure, it takes some studying to do. So what? Prove you love the Lord. Prove you desire spiritual knowledge.

Your sinful nature still remains until what you have dies. You are still in your natural body, your natural sinful flesh is still upon you.

1 Corinthians 15:36 - Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
1 Corinthains 15:42 - So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1 Corinthians 15:43 - It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power
1 Corinthians 15:44 - It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

You are still corrupt. You are within your physical body, which has not yet died. It is corrupt, yet it raises in incorruption. It is dishounourable, but it shall be raised in glory.

1 Corinthains 15:50 - Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

See, we are corrupt. So something happened when Adam bit into that forbidden fruit. We received not the blot, but we retained the sinful nature, the corruption.

1 Corinthians 15:53,54 - For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

We were made in the image of God, but the image of God is to be restored within us, because it has been corrupted. We have sinful flesh. The Bible confirms this, and also confirms that Jesus Christ came in sinful flesh.

Romans 8:3 - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

To have this sinful flesh, does not mean that automatically the Son of God sinned. No, he came down and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, the flesh in man's fallen nature. This confirms that we not only have sinful flesh, but also confirms what was being said in Corinthians, about us being corrupt until the ressurection. Christ does take away our sins, but our sinful nature, or sinful flesh, our corruption is not gone until the ressurection. Mankind was born with a sinful nature. This was passed on through Adam. Not the sin, but the flesh.

Another problem with the original sin doctrine, which I think I mentioned, is claiming that Jesus did not come in our flesh. First, the Church defines a doctrine called original sin, which states our flesh. It then states, that Jesus was free from that flesh. In so doing, their own doctrines have effectually gotten them to say, that Jesus Christ came in a different flesh than you and I have. But the Bible tells us, He was made in our likeness, he was made in our flesh, in our sinful flesh. It does not say he was kept back pure from receiving this flesh. It says, he came in the flesh, he came in our flesh, was tempted in the fallen state the same way we are, yet he overcame, and never once sinned.

As a Christian, I believe that human beings were created pure, just, holy, happy, and healthy. However, God did not create Adam and Ever outside the range of doing something wrong. They were free moral agents, free to obey, free to sin. Once they sinned however, they debased their natures so low, it was impossible for them to withstand anything, and immediatly indulged in sinful tendencies. Remember Adam's Word's to God? Adam freely accepted the fruit he knew not to eat, and He was not deceived. But he chose to sin. Immediatly Adam cast the sin upon the Creator. "The woman whom thou gavest ..." This sinful, degraded nature was passed onto the human family.

I can agree, honour does at times mean glorify. Here is what I pick up from a Concordance
In the Hebrew definitions: - to be heavy, be weighty, be grievous, be hard, be rich, be honourable, be glorious, be burdensome, be honoured
In the Greek defintions: - to honour, to have in honour, to revere, venerate

However, in the Catholic sense of it, I do not agree with. As I said - too much is done for her. She's was honored, and blessed, but Jesus himself plainly stated that the greatest born of a woman was actually John the Baptist, and not Mary.

Matthew 11:11 - Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Mary may have been honoured, but Christ showed that only one would be greater than John the Baptist. And that would be the one that is least in the Kingdom.

Stumpmaster · Dec 3, 2012

In response to arguments by those who hold Mary in such veneration, it is better if you follow after her instruction to the servants in John 2:5.

John 2:1-5

(1) And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
(2) And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
(3) And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said unto Him, "They have no wine."
(4) Jesus said unto her, " Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come."
(5) His mother said unto the servants, " Whatsoever He says unto you, do it."

What is the Lord Jesus Christ asking you to do for Him today? Are you going to do it?

epostle1 · Dec 3, 2012

Stumpmaster said:
In response to arguments by those who hold Mary in such veneration, it is better if you follow after her instruction to the servants in John 2:5.

Click to expand...

John 2:1-5

(1) And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
(2) And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
(3) And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said unto Him, "They have no wine."
(4) Jesus said unto her, " Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come."
(5) His mother said unto the servants, " Whatsoever He says unto you, do it."

What is the Lord Jesus Christ asking you to do for Him today? Are you going to do it?

Click to expand...

That's a good summary of Catholic teaching on Mary.

The Goddess Man Has Made

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads