Co- Redemptrix

[bbyrd009]

Nor can I since I am not Catholic. However I do not see Catholics and Protestants as all that much different. But are both "Christians". I do not segregate them.

ok, well the cultures are obviously different, and you are obviously biased there, yes? i do not willingly claim any label, but i dimly see why a Catholic might want to be called a Christian; only you won't like my understanding of why? there, either, i guess

 

[BreadOfLife]

Still, you have not made a rebuttal to the Scripture reference I offered that refuted your claim as to the “sinless” state of Mary, and that, a good tree can never produce bad fruits.

Does the word “Kecharitomene” has the same idea or meaning as when the woman in Luke 11, lifted up her voice, and said unto Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou has sucked?”

WHAT WAS THE ANSWER?

“Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”

We know whose arrogance is astounding, don't flatter yourself!

To God Be The Glory

Ummmm, first of all - if you're referring to the Magnificat as your "Scripture reference" - I don't see the problem.
I have explained ad nauseam that Mary indeed needed a Savior. She isn't God and did not save herself. Unlike you and me, however, she was saved at conception.

As for the woman in Luke 11 - this is a perfect example of the praise Jesus gives regarding His mother.
Luke 11:27-28
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

This describes His mother to a tee . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The idea that Mary gave birth to God is what's preposterous. The idea that Mary was sinless is what's preposterous.

What's is preposterous is your open hypocrisy.

First, you agree that Mary gave birth to the GOD man - and in the next breath you declare that she didn't.
Make up your mind . . .

There is nothing there with 'kecharitomene' to get passed. It says nothing of sinlessness. Mary was a sinner because she was born of the Adamic race.

Stranger

So was JESUS.
Is HE a sinner??

If this is your only reason for believing that Mary sinned - then your case is as impotent as a "Hillary in 2020" campaign . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

then Mary should have been decreasing, right, i don't see how she can get a pass from that and keep any semblance of Christ together. If there was a single sinless person before Christ, we don't need Christ. Why isn't Mary decreasing? It's obvious, but you just aren't going to like it

Can you show me where the Bible makes this claim??

Chapter and verse, please . . .

 

[aspen]

Christ was in the Garden - He is the Tree of Life and came for us from the beginning. We were the ones who got lost.

 

[Dcopymope]

Christ was in the Garden - He is the Tree of Life and came for us from the beginning. We were the ones who got lost.

If he is the tree of life, then is he still the tree of life in New Jerusalem?

(Revelation 22:1-2) "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. {2} In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

I often see Jesus being called the tree of life, but there is a clear distinction here between the Lamb and the tree.

 

[aspen]

Guess we will have to wait and see

 

[Dcopymope]

Guess we will have to wait and see

Why do we have to wait and see when the distinction is clearly made within his word? What, do you believe that Jesus Christ will look like a tree covered in leaves and fruit?...........

.......and this is what happens when you attempt to allegorize everything, the entire narrative, the Bible as a whole loses meaning, making it look foolish.

 

[Helen]

If he is the tree of life, then is he still the tree of life in New Jerusalem?
I often see Jesus being called the tree of life, but there is a clear distinction here between the Lamb and the tree.

No probs...He is it all...He is also the Light, "And the City has no need of the Sun, for the Lamb is the Light thereof."
As He is the Head of the Body...I would even guess He is the City too..and we are the lively stones...
As you both said.." We will see"

 

[Dcopymope]

No probs...He is it all...He is also the Light, "And the City has no need of the Sun, for the Lamb is the Light thereof."
As He is the Head of the Body...I would even guess He is the City too..and we are the lively stones...
As you both said.." We will see"

Well, God being providing the light for the city is made very clear since no distinction is made between God and the light. This isn't the case for the tree of life though. To me, the millennial reign, which is before the throne judgement proves that tree of life is not literally Jesus Christ. Remember, the bride of Christ rules with Jesus before new Jerusalem comes into the picture. We will already have our redeemed, glorified bodies long beforehand, when we will have conquered death. There is no tree of life present during that period. This is why I believe that Jesus Christ cannot possibly be the tree of life, it doesn't make sense. The millennial reign proves that the tree of life isn't necessarily for the saints, but for the rest of the world, or for the healing of the gentile nations, as it states.

(Revelation 22:2) "In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

 

[michaelvpardo]

How would you explain such verses with this?



Does "none righteous" exclude Zacharias and Elisabeth? When it is claimed that they were both "righteous", is that God talking or this Luke talking?

I believe that Zechariah and Elizabeth were to be considered righteous according to the standard of the law of Moses, not sinless or perfect, but obedient to the commandments and ordinances, sacrificing as required for their unintentional sin, etc. If they were accounted by God as righteous, it was for believing the scripture and acting accordingly, but they still required a redeemer and may have been waiting for one. The scripture doesn't tell us if they were anticipating the coming of the Son of God, but there were many people among the Jews waiting for the coming of the Messiah. Their problem was that Jesus wasn't the sort of Messiah that most Jews were looking for and still isn't to this day.

 

[Stranger]

What's is preposterous is your open hypocrisy.

First, you agree that Mary gave birth to the GOD man - and in the next breath you declare that she didn't.
Make up your mind . . .

So was JESUS.
Is HE a sinner??

If this is your only reason for believing that Mary sinned - then your case is as impotent as a "Hillary in 2020" campaign . . .

Please. It is very simple. Mary gave birth to the God/Man. Not God. Why is this so hard?

Of course Jesus was not a sinner. But Jesus was virgin born. Gee, that was easy. Mary was not.

Is original sin impotent? Everyone born of Adam is born a sinner.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Can you show me where the Bible makes this claim??

Chapter and verse, please . . .

oh pls BoL, i'm not going to debate through sin all died with you ok
believe whatever you like, but don't expect it to ever line up with Scripture then, i don't care
you just demo'ed that back @ "Holy Bible," we get it

 

[BreadOfLife]

oh pls BoL, i'm not going to debate through sin all died with you ok
believe whatever you like, but don't expect it to ever line up with Scripture then, i don't care
you just demo'ed that back @ "Holy Bible," we get it

In other words - you don't have a verse of Scripture that supports your claim.
Par for the course . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Please. It is very simple. Mary gave birth to the God/Man. Not God. Why is this so hard?

Of course Jesus was not a sinner. But Jesus was virgin born. Gee, that was easy. Mary was not.

Is original sin impotent? Everyone born of Adam is born a sinner.

Stranger

And AGAIN - Jesus was born of Adam because His virgin mother was.
Was HE a sinner?

Also - how do you give birth to 100% God and 100% man - yet NOT give birth to God??
This is asinine logic . . .

 

[Richard_oti]

So, did people call you a heretic because you are non-trinitarian?

Heck if I can remember all the reasons. But that has no doubt been one of them. It has been interesting the various reasons that I have been called such. For it has been from the "perspective" of those doing the calling.

 

[Richard_oti]

imo that is not the pertinent part there, but rather "were they born sinless?" At least if we adhere to the doctrine that even one sin deserves death

I don't adhere to the doctrine of OS. Of course, you could always try and show me, or provide that illusive reference to "the fall".

As previously quoted, Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Enoch and Elijah were taken.

 

[Richard_oti]

the sin of being human? We are not informed of Mary's sin, but we are informed of her need for Christ. To posit that Mary was sinless is to go against the need for a Savior in the first place; if Mary can be human, and sinless from birth, then Christ is not needed for anyone, see, we can all follow Mary.

Since when is it a sin to be "human"? As for JtB and Mary, there is nothing written. Thus either way, it is: argumentum ex silentio or argumentum ad ignorantiam.

And those who continue in sin, Christ is of no avail to them anyway.

Nor, did Mary lay down her life for that reason.

Eze 14:14 though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord YHVH.

 

[Richard_oti]

yes, i get that part, but making anyone co-equal with Christ is blasphemy, at least in the Christian model. Put it in the Catholic section, and i'm all good with it.

Who made them equal? Isn't that just the manner in which you are currently perceiving this. Of which any "blasphemy" would only be in your own mind / perception. And even if they didn't sin, that still would not make them equal. There are more factors that would need to be met in order to even bring them close. Besides, it is rather fun playing the DA right now. Which means, that I am not necessarily stating what I think throughout this.

Caleb is attributed as following wholly. Before the Exodus, we do not know if there was any law for him to have transgressed, even though it is very clear there was a form in Abraham's day. Even Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean. Was Caleb without sin? We don't know. But from the time he was "delivered", he was attributed as following wholly. Of what "sin" can you attribute to one who follows wholly?

Besides, I didn't know there was a "Catholic" section here. I guess we are back to "segregation". Or, perhaps we never left such behind. Since so many "segregate" "believers" from one another.

 

[Richard_oti]

seems like plenty of ppl seeking co-redempters and santa clauses though huh. This is where the Easter Bunny originates, this spirit, i guess

Dan 12:4b many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.