The Goddess Man Has Made

dragonfly · Dec 3, 2012

Hello again Rae,

I hope you will do more BIble study around this assertion which you made in post #231 above:

Christ did not sin, but that does not mean that he did not posses the nature of our fallen state.

If Christ had had a fallen nature, then certain statements which scripture makes about Him would not be true. Here are a few:

Acts 2: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

While it could be argued that the previous two statements refer to Christ after His resurrection, the next few are clearly about His natural state.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifies, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Psalm 110:4

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Son of God did not have a 'fallen' (spiritual) nature, although He did come in the 'likeness' of 'sinful flesh'.

Selene · Dec 3, 2012

Raeneske said:
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.

Hello Raeneske,

Peace be with you. This is what the Holy Bible says about the Church:

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things beneath His feet and gave Him as Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

According to the Holy Bible, God gave gifts to members of His Church (including the Holy Spirit), made Himself "Head of the Church" and called the Church, "the Pillar and Foundation of Truth." Christ promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church He built, and He promised to lead His Church into all Truths regardless of sinful members in the Church. If you cannot believe what the Holy Bible says about the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth, then what do you believe?

Jesus is free from original sin, and He was truly created in our human nature. The disagreement here is you think that God created the sinful nature of man. We do not teach this. God has nothing to do with sin, and He did not create it. Everything that God created in the universe is a reflection of His beauty and goodness. There is nothing in His creation that is sinful or bad. When God created man, He created him in His image and likeness. Man's TRUE human nature is being in the image and likeness of God. This is what we teach and have always taught. Christ does not have a fallen nature. A fallen nature indicates that Christ has sin.

When Christ said the following: 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......He was not referring to Mary at all. He was referring to St. John the Baptist. Christ stated that there is none greater than John the Baptist, but we know that Christ is actually GREATER than John the Baptist. In here, Christ was setting an example for us to follow. He was being humble. We follow this same example of Christ by putting ourselves lower than everyone else and making others greater than us. St. Paul also followed this same example when he called himself "the least of all the saints." The Pope also calls himself "The Servant of the Servants of God." In fact, that is one of His title. It is a title that is often never published by the media.

Catholics are told to imitate Christ and to follow in His footsteps. The only reason we honor Mary is because Christ honored and respected His own mother. Christ followed the commandment "Honor thy mother and father" so perfectly that it puts the sons of the earth to shame. What son would not lavish such love and honor to their mother?? The prophecy in the Bible says that all generations will call Mary "blessed." As you can see, God bestowed this great honor on Mary not only on that day but for all future generations. Catholics always call her "Blessed". We don't just call her Mary as Christians do. If God can make us His sons and daughters and heirs to the Kingdom of God (See James 2:5).......then why shouldn't Christ do so much more for His own mother, being the perfect Son that He is?

In Christ,
Selene

Foreigner · Dec 3, 2012

Selene said:
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.

-- Selene, in order for your belief that Mary is a "Co-Mediatrix" to be true, you have to reject Scripture.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" - 1 Tim 2:5

Scripture itself states there is but ONE mediator between God and man - Jesus Christ.

In order for your man-Created belieft to be correct, this scripture would have to be incorrect.

What is even more disturbing is the justifications for certain Catholic beliefs you have made over the last years.
Phrases such as "God could have done it that way if He wanted," "It makes sense that God would have done that," etc. are not proof that God DID do that.

You have no scripture or "Christian Tradition" (other than decisions by a number of Catholics centuries after Christ died) to support many Catholic positions, yet you choose to present them as fact. That is dangerous.

For example:

You claim that Mary was born without sin because God would have wanted Jesus to be born in a sinless vessel.
But there is no way Mary could have been born without sin unless she was born from a sinless vessel. She obviously wasn't.
So how could she have been born sinless from a sinful vessel? Your answer: God could do that.
And with that answer you have just null and voided the need for Mary to be born sinless in order to give birth to Jesus.

But even with that simple irrefutable explantion, no Scriptural support, and no ancient "Christian Tradition" you can point to in order to support your claim, you still preach is as the truth.

You have provided nothing to show it is the truth, therefore you should not be claiming it as such.

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

dragonfly said:
Hello again Rae,

I hope you will do more BIble study around this assertion which you made in post #231 above:

If Christ had had a fallen nature, then certain statements which scripture makes about Him would not be true. Here are a few:

Acts 2: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

While it could be argued that the previous two statements refer to Christ after His resurrection, the next few are clearly about His natural state.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifies, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Psalm 110:4

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Son of God did not have a 'fallen' (spiritual) nature, although He did come in the 'likeness' of 'sinful flesh'.

I took a look at the verses you said. Then I also looked at what the Bible said about that subject.

Acts 2:24 - God raised up Christ, and death could not hold Him. And why could not death hold Jesus?

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)

Christ never sinned, so should he have been subject to death? No.

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 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. (Ezekiel 18:4, 19 KJV)

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

Acts 2:27 - The subject here is not about whether he had sinful flesh, but about seeing "corruption" in death. Corruption meaning, his flesh decayed in death.

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Psalms 16:10 KJV)

Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. (Acts 13:35-37 KJV)

Acts 17:35-37 shows how David served God, then died, was buried with his fathers, then saw corruption.

1 Corinthians 15:45 The first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickened spirit. Scriptures show that there is a quickening during life.

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved (Ephesians 2:1, 5 KJV)

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (Colossians 2:13 KJV)

During life is when they are being quickened, not when they are born. When is the spirit quickened completely?

Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: (1 Corinthians 15:36 KJV)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18 KJV)

Christ was put to death in the flesh, and that which he sowed was quickened when he died. He was then quickened by the Spirit, and raised.

Hebrews 7:14-16 which speaks of the priesthood of Christ, says nothing about the nature of His flesh. It speaks of the fact, that we was not made a priest after the Old Testament Law, but after the order of Melchisedec.

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalms 110:4 KJV)

As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 5:6-10 KJV)

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 6:20 KJV)

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7:11, 12 KJV)

Luke 1:31-35 explains how Mary was to become pregnant, as she asks in Luke 1:34. Verse 35 then explains how it was to happen.

Hope this helps!

Selene said:
Hello Raeneske,

Peace be with you. This is what the Holy Bible says about the Church:

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things beneath His feet and gave Him as Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

According to the Holy Bible, God gave gifts to members of His Church (including the Holy Spirit), made Himself "Head of the Church" and called the Church, "the Pillar and Foundation of Truth." Christ promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church He built, and He promised to lead His Church into all Truths regardless of sinful members in the Church. If you cannot believe what the Holy Bible says about the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth, then what do you believe?

Jesus is free from original sin, and He was truly created in our human nature. The disagreement here is you think that God created the sinful nature of man. We do not teach this. God has nothing to do with sin, and He did not create it. Everything that God created in the universe is a reflection of His beauty and goodness. There is nothing in His creation that is sinful or bad. When God created man, He created him in His image and likeness. Man's TRUE human nature is being in the image and likeness of God. This is what we teach and have always taught. Christ does not have a fallen nature. A fallen nature indicates that Christ has sin.

When Christ said the following: 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......He was not referring to Mary at all. He was referring to St. John the Baptist. Christ stated that there is none greater than John the Baptist, but we know that Christ is actually GREATER than John the Baptist. In here, Christ was setting an example for us to follow. He was being humble. We follow this same example of Christ by putting ourselves lower than everyone else and making others greater than us. St. Paul also followed this same example when he called himself "the least of all the saints." The Pope also calls himself "The Servant of the Servants of God." In fact, that is one of His title. It is a title that is often never published by the media.

Catholics are told to imitate Christ and to follow in His footsteps. The only reason we honor Mary is because Christ honored and respected His own mother. Christ followed the commandment "Honor thy mother and father" so perfectly that it puts the sons of the earth to shame. What son would not lavish such love and honor to their mother?? The prophecy in the Bible says that all generations will call Mary "blessed." As you can see, God bestowed this great honor on Mary not only on that day but for all future generations. Catholics always call her "Blessed". We don't just call her Mary as Christians do. If God can make us His sons and daughters and heirs to the Kingdom of God (See James 2:5).......then why shouldn't Christ do so much more for His own mother, being the perfect Son that He is?

In Christ,
Selene

Selene,
I do believe what is written about the church. But where does that state that that is your church? As I said, the Orthodox church can make the same claims, which one is right? Do I sift through Church traditions to figure it out, or do I search the Word of God to see which is correct? Simple. The Word of God. Any church can make the claim they want to. They can say they are the church. But if you're contradicting the Bible, (Infamous, Isaiah 8:20), you are clearly not the church.

See my answer to dragonfly regarding the sinless nature. Also, I never said God created sinful human nature. Adam and Eve debased the nature themselves. God created good, yet that good chose to bend knee to Satan. In so doing, they became subject unto Satan's powers, because he had been made the king over them.

Christ may have been being humble, Him being the greatest. But he said John was the greatest, not Mary. Therefore John is greater than Mary. Understand?

We are told to immitate Christ. Fine, then why aren't you imitating Christ, by honouring your own father and the mother, the way Christ did His? Christ never once made a prayer to His mother. He showed how we pray to our Father in Heaven. His Father is God, Mary is not God.

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Matthew 6:9 KJV)

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. (Luke 11:2 KJV)

Christ never ever exalted Mary to the status within that church. He did not do Rosaries, He did not pray to His mother, He did not make her co-mediatrix. The church says that. There is only one mediator. Only one.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5 KJV)

Here is the question for you Selene, even if you ignore everything else I say.

How many mediators are there?

Is scripture right, is there only one? - Jesus.

Or is the Roman Catholic Church right, saying there are two? - Mary, being co-mediatrix, and Jesus.

Only one can be right here, because they both clearly contradict each other. Scripture, or The Church, Selene.

And as I said, I admit, Mary is blessed. But since when did being blessed meaned that you are going to be exalted to levels of being prayed to? God blesses us, people call us blessed. But do people pray to us? .... No.

"If God can... God can do this.. etc."

God can do many things Selene. That doesn't mean He did it that way.

Selene · Dec 3, 2012

Foreigner said:
-- Selene, in order for your belief that Mary is a "Co-Mediatrix" to be true, you have to reject Scripture.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" - 1 Tim 2:5

Scripture itself states there is but ONE mediator between God and man - Jesus Christ.

In order for your man-Created belieft to be correct, this scripture would have to be incorrect.

What is even more disturbing is the justifications for certain Catholic beliefs you have made over the last years.
Phrases such as "God could have done it that way if He wanted," "It makes sense that God would have done that," etc. are not proof that God DID do that.

You have no scripture or "Christian Tradition" (other than decisions by a number of Catholics centuries after Christ died) to support many Catholic positions, yet you choose to present them as fact. That is dangerous.

For example:

You claim that Mary was born without sin because God would have wanted Jesus to be born in a sinless vessel.
But there is no way Mary could have been born without sin unless she was born from a sinless vessel. She obviously wasn't.
So how could she have been born sinless from a sinful vessel? Your answer: God could do that.
And with that answer you have just null and voided the need for Mary to be born sinless in order to give birth to Jesus.

But even with that simple irrefutable explantion, no Scriptural support, and no ancient "Christian Tradition" you can point to in order to support your claim, you still preach is as the truth.

You have provided nothing to show it is the truth, therefore you should not be claiming it as such.

Foreigner, I never said that God needed Mary sinless in order for Jesus to be born in a sinless vessel. I stated that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. From the Old Testament, we know that God gave specific instructions to the Israelites to build an Ark for Him to dwell in. This Ark was made of the purest gold inside and outside. Mary is called the "New Ark of the Covenant" because that is where God would dwell for nine months - in her womb. If God is going to give specific instructions of making the Ark of the purest gold inside and out, then it stands to reason that God would also place His only Begotten Son in an Ark that is also pure.

Also, we are not going against the Bible by calling Mary a Co-Mediatrix. There is a big difference between a Mediator and a Co-Mediatrix. "The salvation of humanity was accomplished by God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The Passion and Death of Christ, our sole Redeemer, was not only sufficient but ‘superabundant’ satisfaction for human guilt and the consequent debt of punishment" "But God willed that this work of salvation be accomplished through the collaboration of a woman, while respecting her free will (Gal. 4:4)."

By this we mean that Mary cooperated with God in His work of salvation. This human cooperation is important because we are to follow God's will rather than our own will. This is what it means to be a Co-Mediatrix. Because Mary followed the will of God, she is called the Co-Mediatrix because without her, the one and only Mediator would not be born into the world.

This cooperation with God is not just for the individual’s salvation. The New Testament makes it clear that there is more to it than that. So, for example, we affirm that Jesus is the one High Priest in the new covenant, but the New Testament also calls us to share in that priesthood (Rev. 1:5–6; 1 Pet. 2:5,9). We do this by sharing in Christ’s sufferings (Matt. 16:24; 1 Pet. 4:13).

Another example is St. Paul calling himself a "Co-Worker" with Christ. St. Paul calls himself a "co-worker with Christ" (1 Cor. 3:9) and says part of this is that he is crucified with Christ and shares in Christ’s sufferings (2 Cor. 1:5; Phil. 3:10). So, in the same way, Mary is called the Co-Mediatrix because she cooperated with God in bringing to the world the only and one Mediator. If you believe the Bible and want to live the Christian life, then you will need to cooperate with God rather than following your own will.

Selene,
I do believe what is written about the church. But where does that state that that is your church? As I said, the Orthodox church can make the same claims, which one is right? Do I sift through Church traditions to figure it out, or do I search the Word of God to see which is correct? Simple. The Word of God. Any church can make the claim they want to. They can say they are the church. But if you're contradicting the Bible, (Infamous, Isaiah 8:20), you are clearly not the church.

Hello Raeneske,

We actually view the Eastern Orthodox Church our sister Church, and they view the Roman Catholics as their elder brother. We both recognize each other as an "Apostolic" Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church CAN trace their lineage to an Apostle. The Roman Catholics can also do the same. We know that the Orthodox Christians in Turkey, for example, was founded by Christ through the Apostle Andrew, and they recognize that the Roman Catholics was founded by Christ through the Apostle Peter. There never was any argument between us regarding our lineage because we both recognize each other as "Apostolic Churches" founded by an Apostle of Christ. We both recognize our lineage as valid and true.

As a matter of fact, the Eastern Catholics follow the same liturgies as the Eastern Orthodox Church and are accepted by the Vatican. These Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome, and their liturgies are actually much older than ours in the Western rite. It is only our Christian brothers (Protestants) who claim that both Orthodox and Roman Catholics are wrong and cannot trace their lineage to an Apostle.

epostle1 · Dec 3, 2012

We cannot believe the church of Rome, because it is a bunch of men.

This is the first thing that anti-Catholics must assert in order to justify their rebellion against the Church Jesus founded. They remove the Holy Spirit from her, and claim it it was just a bunch of men at Nicaea that clarified the Trinity in the face of Arianism, just a bunch of men that put the books of the Bible together in 393 AD, just a bunch of men that clarified the Incarnation in the face of Nestorianism, on and on. But Raeneske wants us to believe his cult leaders, who broke off from Protestantism some 100 years ago, have a better idea.

Rex · Dec 3, 2012

kepha31 said:
just a bunch of men that put the books of the Bible together in 393 AD,

Those books were doing just fine before your church joined hands in marriage with the Roman empire. They were a more numerous "record of Christ" than any other event in history. To say Rome is credited with this act is foolish, Rome from 70AD to 318AD tried to exterminate Christians. Then it sought to control Christians from its state approved church the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course they canonized the bible that's all part of the union between church and state "officialism". the "power of authority"

To this very day Rome and its church try to place all Christianity under her thumb.

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

Selene said:
Foreigner, I never said that God needed Mary sinless in order for Jesus to be born in a sinless vessel. I stated that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. From the Old Testament, we know that God gave specific instructions to the Israelites to build an Ark for Him to dwell in. This Ark was made of the purest gold inside and outside. Mary is called the "New Ark of the Covenant" because that is where God would dwell for nine months - in her womb. If God is going to give specific instructions of making the Ark of the purest gold inside and out, then it stands to reason that God would also place His only Begotten Son in an Ark that is also pure.

Also, we are not going against the Bible by calling Mary a Co-Mediatrix. There is a big difference between a Mediator and a Co-Mediatrix. "The salvation of humanity was accomplished by God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The Passion and Death of Christ, our sole Redeemer, was not only sufficient but ‘superabundant’ satisfaction for human guilt and the consequent debt of punishment" "But God willed that this work of salvation be accomplished through the collaboration of a woman, while respecting her free will (Gal. 4:4)."

By this we mean that Mary cooperated with God in His work of salvation. This human cooperation is important because we are to follow God's will rather than our own will. This is what it means to be a Co-Mediatrix. Because Mary followed the will of God, she is called the Co-Mediatrix because without her, the one and only Mediator would not be born into the world.

This cooperation with God is not just for the individual’s salvation. The New Testament makes it clear that there is more to it than that. So, for example, we affirm that Jesus is the one High Priest in the new covenant, but the New Testament also calls us to share in that priesthood (Rev. 1:5–6; 1 Pet. 2:5,9). We do this by sharing in Christ’s sufferings (Matt. 16:24; 1 Pet. 4:13).

Another example is St. Paul calling himself a "Co-Worker" with Christ. St. Paul calls himself a "co-worker with Christ" (1 Cor. 3:9) and says part of this is that he is crucified with Christ and shares in Christ’s sufferings (2 Cor. 1:5; Phil. 3:10). So, in the same way, Mary is called the Co-Mediatrix because she cooperated with God in bringing to the world the only and one Mediator. If you believe the Bible and want to live the Christian life, then you will need to cooperate with God rather than following your own will.

Hello Raeneske,

We actually view the Eastern Orthodox Church our sister Church, and they view the Roman Catholics as their elder brother. We both recognize each other as an "Apostolic" Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church CAN trace their lineage to an Apostle. The Roman Catholics can also do the same. We know that the Orthodox Christians in Turkey, for example, was founded by Christ through the Apostle Andrew, and they recognize that the Roman Catholics was founded by Christ through the Apostle Peter. There never was any argument between us regarding our lineage because we both recognize each other as "Apostolic Churches" founded by an Apostle of Christ. We both recognize our lineage as valid and true.

As a matter of fact, the Eastern Catholics follow the same liturgies as the Eastern Orthodox Church and are accepted by the Vatican. These Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome, and their liturgies are actually much older than ours in the Western rite. It is only our Christian brothers (Protestants) who claim that both Orthodox and Roman Catholics are wrong and cannot trace their lineage to an Apostle.

Galatians 4:4 doesn't say that.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Galatians 4:4 KJV)

As for God only placing His Son in a place that would be pure... It was not a sinless womb. Someone said this earlier, but the Gospel of Christ is about Jesus coming down from the comfort of heaven, to the uncomfortable, sin-stricken world. This is exactly why Jesus was born in a poverty stricken place, and was among the poor. If God really wanted Jesus to be comfortable, I think He would have made Jesus a Prince, and then a King from the start of His life on earth. He would have given Him a luxurious home to live in, so that He could be comfortable, and so that every single thing that He had would be clean. A perfect, sinless little household, with a mother with a sinless womb... This is not the Gospel of Christ.

Mary is not the only person who cooperated with God. What about the Carpenter? He could have easily gotten jealous, and tried to slay Mary. But He protected Mary. Is Joseph Co-Mediator? What about all the Apostles? Co-Mediators? What about John the Baptist, who Jesus himself said was the greatest? Co-Mediator?

The "Co-Mediatrix" does not need to be there, because it implies something far different than what you're telling us. There is no "Co-Mediatrix", there is one mediator. And no amount of slipping in "Co-Medi-anything" will change that. Mary is blessed, we get that. All generations shall call her blessed, we accept that. Mary is blessed, I know that, far above any woman. But's she's not a mediator.

The Bible does in fact say we are labourers with God, that we suffer with Christ. But we are not Co-Mediators, no one is. Mary is not a Co-Mediatrix. There is only one who was a Mediator between us and the Father. That is Jesus. No one is said to be there, mediating for our sins, other than Jesus.

Selene, that didn't answer a word of anything I just said to you. While the Vatican may look at Eastern Orthodox that way, I'm %100 sure all those that are Orthodox don't think so highly of the Vatican. But as I said, you answered nothing I addressed.

If both Churches have differences (they do), who do I believe? What do I use to test your traditions? Do I guess, and hope for the best? ... No. If you contradict the scriptures, I don't care what you claim your past is, or how great the church may be. It means nothing (Isaiah 8:20).

kepha31 said:
This is the first thing that anti-Catholics must assert in order to justify their rebellion against the Church Jesus founded. They remove the Holy Spirit from her, and claim it it was just a bunch of men at Nicaea that clarified the Trinity in the face of Arianism, just a bunch of men that put the books of the Bible together in 393 AD, just a bunch of men that clarified the Incarnation in the face of Nestorianism, on and on. But Raeneske wants us to believe his cult leaders, who broke off from Protestantism some 100 years ago, have a better idea.

The church does not have the Holy Spirit. Anyone can make that claim. Even you can see that 3,000 seperations of people claim to have the Holy Spirit is a little ridiculous. And for what reasons do you deny that they are speaking truth?

I won't finger point, but I will say, if your doctrines contradict the Bible, then you aren't God's Church. It's really that simple. Of course we're going to take the Bible alone. If you're going to sit here and argue your traditions against the Word of God, I think it's very obvious which side I'm going to take.

epostle1 · Dec 3, 2012

"Co" in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator. Mary "assisted" in our redemption and she assists in our mediation with Christ.
This context does not give Mary equal status with Christ, or usurp Christ in anyway. She, rather, merely cooperated and collaborated with Christ.
In a sense we, too, are co-mediators every time we pray for someone. We are offering intercession/mediation for our friend when we pray for them. This does not make us God or equal with God, it only means that we are cooperating with the economy of God when he asked us to be a family and pray for each other.

In terms of Mary as co-redeemer, she did in fact, cooperate in the redemption. When she made her fiat to accept God's will for her to bear the Christ Child she was cooperating in the redemption of mankind for it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world.
The solution to problems like this is not suppression but education. "co" just simply does NOT mean "equal to".

Mary's role was not incidental but REQUIRED. Jesus, to be incarnated, HAD to be born of a woman, otherwise he would not be human and thus could not be the redeemer.

Mary's collaboration was required; Judas' participation was not, but was incidental.
At this time the theory of co-redeemer is not Church dogma, and is not binding for belief by the faithful. (and probably never will be, because language is always in a state of flux) But the concept should not wrinkle our shirts if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the true meaning of "co".

Rex · Dec 3, 2012

kepha31 said:
At this time the theory of co-redeemer is not Church dogma, and is not binding for belief by the faithful. (and probably never will be, because language is always in a state of flux) But the concept should not wrinkle our shirts if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the true meaning of "co".

catechism abc123 when your cornered play word games

epostle1 · Dec 3, 2012

The co-pilot of an airplane is not equal to the captain. Plain English is not "word games", you just say that because a clear, simple explanation of co-mediator/co-redeemer is beyond your comprehension.

Rex · Dec 3, 2012

kepha31 said:
The co-pilot of an airplane is not equal to the captain. Plain English is not "word games", you just say that because a clear, simple explanation of co-mediator/co-redeemer is beyond your comprehension.

As is the message of salvation beyond your comprehension

as you also say --->and the incomplete message of the bible

The great 19th century preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, said: “If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority….We shall gradually be so bedoubted and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy… and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness.” [emphasis mine]

http://bibletranslat...-james-onlyism/

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

kepha31 said:
"Co" in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator. Mary "assisted" in our redemption and she assists in our mediation with Christ.
This context does not give Mary equal status with Christ, or usurp Christ in anyway. She, rather, merely cooperated and collaborated with Christ.
In a sense we, too, are co-mediators every time we pray for someone. We are offering intercession/mediation for our friend when we pray for them. This does not make us God or equal with God, it only means that we are cooperating with the economy of God when he asked us to be a family and pray for each other.

In terms of Mary as co-redeemer, she did in fact, cooperate in the redemption. When she made her fiat to accept God's will for her to bear the Christ Child she was cooperating in the redemption of mankind for it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world.
The solution to problems like this is not suppression but education. "co" just simply does NOT mean "equal to".

Mary's role was not incidental but REQUIRED. Jesus, to be incarnated, HAD to be born of a woman, otherwise he would not be human and thus could not be the redeemer.

Mary's collaboration was required; Judas' participation was not, but was incidental.
At this time the theory of co-redeemer is not Church dogma, and is not binding for belief by the faithful. (and probably never will be, because language is always in a state of flux) But the concept should not wrinkle our shirts if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the true meaning of "co".

It's truly amazing what will be said to defend the stance for Mary being exalted in the Roman Catholic Church. Mary wouldn't even be the Co-Pilot. She'd be the mother of the Pilot who saved the world.

By the way, Co-Pilots are pilots. They are able to carry out the same things as a pilot does. So, if the Pilot goes down, the Co-Pilot can fly too. I think I can see what you're trying to say - but this is a bad example. Because, even if Jesus stepped out of office, there's no one there to fill His place. Mary surely couldn't do it.

The problem is not even with the definition of the word co-, it's the mediator part that's mindboggling. We are not Co-mediators. We are labourers, that assist God. It's impossible for us to even co-mediate. Being a labourer, and mediator are entirely different, especially in God's Word. The mediator stands between God and mankind, and bore the sins of the world. The mediator is the only one who can mediate - it's impossible for someone else to mediate. From the word of God, the mediator is Jesus Christ - and Him only.

Do we stand between God and man, when we pray for someone? No... Because Jesus is the one standing between you and God, so that you can even pray without it being an abomination to God. You're not between anything.

Mary has just as much to do with your salvation as her mother does. Mary's mother birthed her right? She could have easily decided not to give birth to her. Or maybe we owe it to Abraham, for being cooperative, and being the father of many nations. After all, of it wasn't for Him, How could Jesus have come through the line of Israel? Or Noah? Isn't he required, to even have a Saviour? Would Jesus have even come, if Noah decided not to cooperate, and not build an ark? See, I don't get why Mary is so exalted in the Roman Catholic Church. I get she played a role in birthing the Saviour. She also took care of Him, and was blessed with that oppurtunity. She is even more blessed than any woman! But Jesus still said John the Baptist is greater... No Rosaries for Him?

When we were given examples of great faith in the New Testement, where is Mary mentioned... I can find Abraham. Where is Mary?

Selene · Dec 4, 2012

Raeneske said:
Galatians 4:4 doesn't say that.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Galatians 4:4 KJV)

As for God only placing His Son in a place that would be pure... It was not a sinless womb. Someone said this earlier, but the Gospel of Christ is about Jesus coming down from the comfort of heaven, to the uncomfortable, sin-stricken world. This is exactly why Jesus was born in a poverty stricken place, and was among the poor. If God really wanted Jesus to be comfortable, I think He would have made Jesus a Prince, and then a King from the start of His life on earth. He would have given Him a luxurious home to live in, so that He could be comfortable, and so that every single thing that He had would be clean. A perfect, sinless little household, with a mother with a sinless womb... This is not the Gospel of Christ.

Mary is not the only person who cooperated with God. What about the Carpenter? He could have easily gotten jealous, and tried to slay Mary. But He protected Mary. Is Joseph Co-Mediator? What about all the Apostles? Co-Mediators? What about John the Baptist, who Jesus himself said was the greatest? Co-Mediator?

The "Co-Mediatrix" does not need to be there, because it implies something far different than what you're telling us. There is no "Co-Mediatrix", there is one mediator. And no amount of slipping in "Co-Medi-anything" will change that. Mary is blessed, we get that. All generations shall call her blessed, we accept that. Mary is blessed, I know that, far above any woman. But's she's not a mediator.

The Bible does in fact say we are labourers with God, that we suffer with Christ. But we are not Co-Mediators, no one is. Mary is not a Co-Mediatrix. There is only one who was a Mediator between us and the Father. That is Jesus. No one is said to be there, mediating for our sins, other than Jesus.

Selene, that didn't answer a word of anything I just said to you. While the Vatican may look at Eastern Orthodox that way, I'm %100 sure all those that are Orthodox don't think so highly of the Vatican. But as I said, you answered nothing I addressed.

If both Churches have differences (they do), who do I believe? What do I use to test your traditions? Do I guess, and hope for the best? ... No. If you contradict the scriptures, I don't care what you claim your past is, or how great the church may be. It means nothing (Isaiah 8:20).

The church does not have the Holy Spirit. Anyone can make that claim. Even you can see that 3,000 seperations of people claim to have the Holy Spirit is a little ridiculous. And for what reasons do you deny that they are speaking truth?

I won't finger point, but I will say, if your doctrines contradict the Bible, then you aren't God's Church. It's really that simple. Of course we're going to take the Bible alone. If you're going to sit here and argue your traditions against the Word of God, I think it's very obvious which side I'm going to take.

God's plan of salvation included being born of a woman. That is what Gal. 4:4 says. Christ came down incarnated in the form of a man, but being born of a woman. God not only humbled Himself into the form of a man, but He also humbled Himself by getting the cooperation of a woman so that He can be born into the world from that woman. Catholics believe that Mary was sinless and I already explained the reasons why we believe that. Our doctrines do not contradict the Bible. As I said, God gave specific instructions to the Israelites to build the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. The Ark of the Covenant was where God dwelled among His chosen people. He instructed the Israelites to make the Ark pure gold inside and outside. It is because of this that we also believe that God would place His Only Begotten Son in a woman who is also pure and sinless. We don't believe that God dwells in a place of sin. He loves sinners, but He does not approve of sin. In fact, we don't even believe that God dwells in Hell. Why? Because Hell is a place of wickedness and full of sin. Hell is being separated from God. So, if God does not dwell in Hell, why should He dwell in a woman full of sin?

My brother, the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are 99% similar. Over the past many years, there has been a positive dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics (See the weblink below). It is easier for Eastern Orthodox and Catholics to come together because a large majority of our doctrines are similar. Afterall, we are both Apostolic Churchs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6553583/Russian-Orthodox-and-Catholic-church-may-end-950-year-rift.html

As a matter of fact, many of the Anglicans have decided to reunite with Rome (See the weblink below).

http://frstephensmuts.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/survey-half-of-anglicans-want-reunion-with-rome/

It does not matter to me, which side you take. Statistics show that Catholicism has increased worldwide. Even the number of priests and seminaries have increased. And statistics show that Protestanism has greatly declined. The Gnostics who existed during the first century also declined until they vanished because their religion is of man. Our Church has been standing for over 2000 years because ours if of God.

Acts 5:35-39 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; But if it is of God you cannot overthrow it - lest you even befound to fight aqainst God."

dragonfly · Dec 4, 2012

Dear Selene,

It is clear you don't read the Bible for yourself.

If you did. If you would. You would realise the mistakes in the logic which you have accepted from someone else.

You would not be able to make this kind of statement,

Our doctrines do not contradict the Bible.

without realising it's a lie. Genesis 3:4

Raeneske · Dec 4, 2012

Selene said:
God's plan of salvation included being born of a woman. That is what Gal. 4:4 says. Christ came down incarnated in the form of a man, but being born of a woman. God not only humbled Himself into the form of a man, but He also humbled Himself by getting the cooperation of a woman so that He can be born into the world from that woman. Catholics believe that Mary was sinless and I already explained the reasons why we believe that. Our doctrines do not contradict the Bible. As I said, God gave specific instructions to the Israelites to build the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. The Ark of the Covenant was where God dwelled among His chosen people. He instructed the Israelites to make the Ark pure gold inside and outside. It is because of this that we also believe that God would place His Only Begotten Son in a woman who is also pure and sinless. We don't believe that God dwells in a place of sin. He loves sinners, but He does not approve of sin. In fact, we don't even believe that God dwells in Hell. Why? Because Hell is a place of wickedness and full of sin. Hell is being separated from God. So, if God does not dwell in Hell, why should He dwell in a woman full of sin?

My brother, the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are 99% similar. Over the past many years, there has been a positive dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics (See the weblink below). It is easier for Eastern Orthodox and Catholics to come together because a large majority of our doctrines are similar. Afterall, we are both Apostolic Churchs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6553583/Russian-Orthodox-and-Catholic-church-may-end-950-year-rift.html

As a matter of fact, many of the Anglicans have decided to reunite with Rome (See the weblink below).

http://frstephensmuts.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/survey-half-of-anglicans-want-reunion-with-rome/

It does not matter to me, which side you take. Statistics show that Catholicism has increased worldwide. Even the number of priests and seminaries have increased. And statistics show that Protestanism has greatly declined. The Gnostics who existed during the first century also declined until they vanished because their religion is of man. Our Church has been standing for over 2000 years because ours if of God.

Acts 5:35-39 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; But if it is of God you cannot overthrow it - lest you even befound to fight aqainst God."

Selene,

Concerning your statistics, I do not believe that is a good thing. The fact that churches are joining back up with the Roman Catholic Church speaks volumes about what time it is. In Noah's Day, the majority were incorrect. As a matter of fact, what better way for Satan to deceive the World, than to join in with all the Christian Churches? You do not have to answer this part. However, this next part about Mary, I would appreciate a response.

Mary was not sinless. The Bible says:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12 KJV)

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:23 KJV)

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; (1 Kings 8:46 KJV)

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near; (2 Chronicles 6:36 KJV)[/b]

The Catholic Church makes the claim that she does not contradict the Bible; She claims Mary being sinless, yet scripture contradicts her very words? Selene, the only reason for a Saviour, is because of sin. Adam and Eve did not need a Saviour in their perfect, happy and Holy state. So, why would Mary need a Saviour, if she was indeed sinless?

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47 KJV)

Scriptures not only say that all have sinned, but Mary herself professes the rejoicing of spirit for her Saviour.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:11, 13 KJV)

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10 KJV)

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

Whose wrong? The Church, or the Bible?

You don't believe God dwells in a place of sin? While I agree, God does not approve of sin, nor sinful places - Since when did that mean he chose not to dwell among His people? We are the temple of God, so God dwells within us. Have we sinned before? Yes. Do we still make mistakes. Yes. Is that any reason to believe God doesn't dwell in us? No. What does the Bible say?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV)

You are the temple of God, the human body is the temple of God. God dwells inside of a Christian.

So, the Bible says that all have sinned, and Mary herself called upon her Saviour. We have seen the Bible says you need a Saviour for your sins. We have also seen, that God dwells within us, as we are the temple of God.

If God can dwell within a Christian, whose struggling to walk correctly, He can put His Son within a sinful woman, to be born in the world. Mary did indeed commit sins, as the Word of God says all have sinned. The only one who was sinless, was Jesus Christ. Even Mary herself professed the need in a Saviour. God is wonderful enough, to have those words written down which came from her very own lips.

So Selene, the Catholic Church does in fact contradict the Bible. The reasoning for it is not your concern, or my concern. Your primary concern, should be Jesus Christ, and knowing Him, and not what your church says. If the Bible says Mary was sinless, please show me where. Do not put what the Catholic Church says about it. I want to hear what your studies within the Word of God have found, where it tells you Mary was sinless. As far as the Word of God says, she was not.

Rescued By Mary · Dec 4, 2012

Jesus Christ was the only man who got to chose His own Mother.

What would you do?

Selene · Dec 4, 2012

I believe everything the Bible says about the Church. She is the pillar and foundation of Truth and Christ is her Head and leads her into all truths. We don't contradict scripture.

You say that man was born with a sin nature. The word "sin nature" does not even found in the Bible. We say that man was created in the image of God, and that is found in scripture. You say that Mary was full of sin. I already told you the reason why we do not believe that Mary was full of sin. The answer is found in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to offer their sacrifices in clean vessels (Isaiah 66:20).

Isaiah 66:20 "Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the LORD out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the LORD, "as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

Well, Christ is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed as an offering for our sins. Since God commanded the Israelites to offer their sacrifices in clean vessels, don't you think that it would make sense for God to the same?? Would He not also place the Lamb of God in a clean vessel as well since the Lamb of God (Jesus) is to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind?? This clean vessel was Mary.

Rex · Dec 4, 2012

Selene said:
God's plan of salvation included being born of a woman. That is what Gal. 4:4 says. Christ came down incarnated in the form of a man, but being born of a woman. God not only humbled Himself into the form of a man, but He also humbled Himself by getting the cooperation of a woman so that He can be born into the world from that woman. Catholics believe that Mary was sinless and I already explained the reasons why we believe that.

You twisted the promise to begin with "from her seed". I don't know how often I need to repeat it but here it is again.
Adam and Eve threw their disobedience passed death "the stain of original sin" on to all mankind threw their seed there children, they all carried the stain as Catholics put it of the original sin. Paul makes that clear in Romans 5:12-21.

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

By saying that Mary never shared in the stain of original sin, you deny the promise made to Eve that threw her seed sharing in Eves fallen condition" the Christ as we know today will come and bruise the serpents head. There is more going on here than the Christ will come from a woman, this woman Mary" shared in every way the same fallen condition of every decedent of Eve. She was not some demi god that gave birth to the real God. This is why we see in the NT that in every way Jesus was made like his brethren. You deny that Jesus came in the flesh just as John said was the sign of the anti-christ teaching. 1 John 4:1

You drag the teaching of Nimrod and his wife Ishtar right back into being worshiped just as it was from the beginning of his kingdom Babel Gen 10:10

The Queen Of Heavens that apostate Jews were worshiping during the time of the prophet Jeremiah was likely Astarte. The women back there were baking sacrifical cakes to this goddess. Jeremiah 44:15-19
Complete with Catholic the magic cakes, the Eucharist

Her counterparts are known as Innana, Ishtar, Isis, Osiris,Isi and Iswara and Cybele She was said to be the wife of Tammuz a pagan god. Tammuz, also called Damuzi was originally a man, a King of Erech, possibly one and the same as Nimrod, (Check Genesis 10:10)
So the Queen of The Heavens was Nimrods wife, but Semiramis was his mother.
Nimrod’s mother, being the wife of Cush, was a granddaughter of Noah’s wife, who survived the great flood, the same as the fishes. Note how the Babylonish pagan religion made use of this fact in deifying Semiramis, making her a goddess, the daughter of the fish-goddess Atargatis.

And the pope still wears his a fish hat to this day.

Mungo · Dec 4, 2012

Rex said:
You drag the teaching of Nimrod and his wife Ishtar right back into being worshiped just as it was from the beginning of his kingdom Babel Gen 10:10

Please can you explain this statement.

Thank you

Rex said:
The Queen Of Heavens that apostate Jews were worshiping during the time of the prophet Jeremiah was likely Astarte. The women back there were baking sacrifical cakes to this goddess. Jeremiah 44:15-19
Complete with Catholic the magic cakes, the Eucharist

Her counterparts are known as Innana, Ishtar, Isis, Osiris,Isi and Iswara and Cybele She was said to be the wife of Tammuz a pagan god. Tammuz, also called Damuzi was originally a man, a King of Erech, possibly one and the same as Nimrod, (Check Genesis 10:10)
So the Queen of The Heavens was Nimrods wife, but Semiramis was his mother.
Nimrod’s mother, being the wife of Cush, was a granddaughter of Noah’s wife, who survived the great flood, the same as the fishes. Note how the Babylonish pagan religion made use of this fact in deifying Semiramis, making her a goddess, the daughter of the fish-goddess Atargatis.

This is all unhistorical bilge.

The source always tracks back to that piece of fiction written by Alexander Hislop called The Two Babylons.

As Wikipedia says: It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons

His claims were extensively investigated by Ralph Woodrow, an evangelical minister who completely destroyed Hislop’s claims in his book The Babylon Connection?

It is very sad that today's anti-catholic bigots still propagate this stuff around the Internet.

Rex said:
And the pope still wears his a fish hat to this day.

More nonesense.

The "Dagon fish God" will be based on excavations at Ninevah by Austen Henry Lanyard in the 19th century (Assyria not Bablylon).

Ninevah was destroyed in 612 BC.

The Pope's mitre evolved from a high conical cap to the current shape over centuries, not reaching it's present shape until some time after 1100. AD, some 1700 years after Ninevah was destroyed and 700 years before it was re-discovered.

But I don't suppose you care about truth do you.

The Goddess Man Has Made

Well-Known Member

New Member

New 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

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads