Co- Redemptrix

[BreadOfLife]

And Jesus was the only one without sin... that big impressive word does not make her sinless.... not that you care about truth at all.

Really??
According to whom??

 

[mjrhealth]

Really??
According to whom??

The bible

Rev 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

hard when you have to spend your existence defending a lie. I really do hope you have a nice day, i am sure most of us did.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The bible

Rev 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

hard when you have to spend your existence defending a lie. I really do hope you have a nice day, i am sure most of us did.

Wrong.

This is speaking to the fact that nobody could or SHOULD open the Scroll but Christ because it is HIS to open.
NOWHERE does this say that Mary could NOT have been sinless.

Try again . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Wrong.

This is speaking to the fact that nobody could or SHOULD open the Scroll but Christ because it is HIS to open.
NOWHERE does this say that Mary could NOT have been sinless.

Try again . . .

As i said before if she was sinless as He was than she too would have being worthy, certainly if she was sinless she wouldnt need Jesus, and bold with big letters just makes you loud not right, impresses no one , cept maybe you. Are you now corrected or do you need to study english first.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As i said before if she was sinless as He was than she too would have being worthy, certainly if she was sinless she wouldnt need Jesus, and bold with big letters just makes you loud not right, impresses no one , cept maybe you. Are you now corrected or do you need to study english first.

You're pathetically desperate rant aside - Rev. 5:4-5 is about the Scroll being opened by Jesus because it is HIS to open.
Those in Heaven are sinless - yet they were not worthy to open it either, Einstien.

 

[mjrhealth]

You're pathetically desperate rant aside - Rev. 5:4-5 is about the Scroll being opened by Jesus because it is HIS to open.
Those in Heaven are sinless - yet they were not worthy to open it either, Einstien.

Desperate im not teh one defending a lie, or an idol, since salvation is not in Mary, she can do nothing, not answer your prayers, not save you, not do miracles, just an idol in teh hearts of men, far to many men for that matter, even to death.

I am teh way teh truth and teh life, He says, yet men still chase after idols...

ps i dont have to yell either, teh truth doesnt need to be yelled at people....

 

[epostle1]

Where did you get the notion that everyone who disagrees with you in these forums is wrong?

Have you not read 1 Corinthians 14:36, “What? Came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”

It is true the word “holy” as concerning a child of God means to be “set apart.” When God looks at us He sees our sins as dirty rags, no difference from Mary’s sins. However, as God is Holy (1Peter 1:16), He has ordained that we should also be Holy as He is Holy (without sin), and this can only be achieved when our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.

I don’t know where you got your kakameme idea (Kechatorimene) for God is no respecter of persons nor has He any favoritism.

I have an advice for you which you have never given respect to others: “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

To God Be The Glory

As a child of God, I also know when Mary received her salvation, just as the rest of the saved received theirs before the foundations of the world! But Catholics can never claim this truth because they believe in a “holding” place called Purgatory.

A classic non sequitur. Everyone in purgatory is saved, a truth you deny, or can't understand.
The notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Here is the difference between a child of God and a Catholic, a Catholic does not know how to read nor understand Scriptures. Yes, it is true in many Protestant churches, it is taught a person can be saved by reciting the sinner’s prayer, but it is a false teaching. A child of God can only become saved by “Grace Alone” whether in the Old or New Testaments!

Saved by grace alone is a primary Catholic doctrine your forefathers borrowed from us.

As already stated above, obviously, every child of God is “full of grace” since a person can only be saved by grace. So throw away your doctrine of Kecharitomene.

Then you throw away Romans 6:14
Ephesians 2:8-10

The biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Do you deny this too?

For a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that
grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy.
It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

Your church may teach Mary was saved when she conceived, but this is in direct contradiction as Scripture teaches, Jesus, as the Lamb, was slain before the foundation of the world!

What difference does that make? Mary's sinlessness is a direct result of the slain Lamb; the merits of the cross working in all directions in time. Nobody ever said Mary made herself sinless.

are putting words in my mouth! Catholics have a bad habit of doing this and changing the meaning of Scriptures to suit their agenda.

We use the same dictionaries and concordances as you. The meaning of scripture is in seed form, the esense cannot change.

Not mine but God’s system. Jesus, like any other person, must reside in a womb for nine months to become human, and that is all Mary did. It could have very well been...fill in the blank, and whoever she is would still be blessed and full of grace.

1 John 4:2-3a
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God…

To God Be The Glory[/QUOTE]
Mary is foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

 

[mjrhealth]

then Original Sin must be rejected with it

how can a man be born with sin, for a man to sin he must commit an act against God, a Fetus cannot do that neither can a child who has no understanding. We are born "into" sin not with sin that is another reason why child baptisms are pointless they serve no purpose just a ritual for many religions. Only God knows that time when one is of an age of understanding where he can be found guilty of sin. God could never keep back a child has in His eyes has done know wrong,

as for saved by Grace its a Jesus God thing, instituted since teh beginning of time, long before any of mens religions came along.

Wise men may seek Him but foolish men hold on to there religions.

 

[epostle1]

Where did you get the notion that everyone who disagrees with you in these forums is wrong?

Have you not read 1 Corinthians 14:36, “What? Came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”

It is true the word “holy” as concerning a child of God means to be “set apart.” When God looks at us He sees our sins as dirty rags, no difference from Mary’s sins. However, as God is Holy (1Peter 1:16), He has ordained that we should also be Holy as He is Holy (without sin), and this can only be achieved when our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.

Mary never had sins that needed washing away in the first place. She was CONCEIVED without sin or the angel Gabriel lied.

I don’t know where you got your kakameme idea (Kechatorimene) for God is no respecter of persons nor has He any favoritism.

I get it from Protestant scholars and lingualists that you ignore. Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse (Luke 1:28) as follows:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘”

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate-conception.html

Since the 1850's, every Protestant church upheld Mary's sinlessness, following Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger and many still do. "Mary a sinner" is a false man made tradition, invented by modernist heretics following the enlightenment era.

 

[michaelvpardo]

That has nothing to do with what I said. God is everywhere, which is true; but you say not with with Mary, which is self contradictory, thus you throw Mary out of the Bible. My statement is based on Revelation 21:27, which does not cancel out or replace the omnipresence of God, which is a totally different theology.
God resided in Mary's womb and you need to get over your prejudice and admit that truth.
Your avoidance of the questions is obvious. God isn't omnipresent enough to make the mother of His son sinless??? What kind of God is that?, He CHOSE to, He didn't HAVE to.

I never said such a thing, but I don't believe that Mary or anyone else was born without sin except for the Lord (who was begotten by the power of the Holy Spirit and not by the will of man.) Will is the source of sin in man until man is submitted to the will of God. Scripture also tells us that those who are born again are then born by the will of God and consequently have a new nature.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Desperate im not teh one defending a lie, or an idol, since salvation is not in Mary, she can do nothing, not answer your prayers, not save you, not do miracles, just an idol in teh hearts of men, far to many men for that matter, even to death.

I am teh way teh truth and teh life, He says, yet men still chase after idols...

ps i dont have to yell either, teh truth doesnt need to be yelled at people....

And the Church doesn't teach that salvation is in Mary.
That's a lie of your own invention . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I never said such a thing, but I don't believe that Mary or anyone else was born without sin except for the Lord (who was begotten by the power of the Holy Spirit and not by the will of man.) Will is the source of sin in man until man is submitted to the will of God. Scripture also tells us that those who are born again are then born by the will of God and consequently have a new nature.

Sooooo, you believe that man's will is stronger than the omnipotence of God??
What an appalling lack of faith.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Sooooo, you believe that man's will is stronger than the omnipotence of God??
What an appalling lack of faith.

You don't understand will or where it issues from. What a lack of understanding!

 

[BreadOfLife]

You don't understand will or where it issues from. What a lack of understanding!

Translation:
"Oops - I stuck my foot in my mouth again!"

 

[epostle1]

I never said such a thing, but I don't believe that Mary or anyone else was born without sin except for the Lord (who was begotten by the power of the Holy Spirit and not by the will of man.) Will is the source of sin in man until man is submitted to the will of God. Scripture also tells us that those who are born again are then born by the will of God and consequently have a new nature.

Jesus was not born free of sin, He was incarnated. Mary was not incarnated, she was conceived by regular parents, so your dichotomy between Jesus and Mary is false.

Adam and Eve were created without sin, satan was created without sin, so why is the mother of Jesus (conceived without sin by the power of God) so unthinkable to a select group of Protestants? Is God lacking in power?

Protestants build their entire rule of faith and theology upon sola Scriptura (the notion that the only infallible authority is Scripture, and in practice, that every doctrine needs explicit biblical proof to be believed at all), yet this idea is never found in Scripture anywhere (it was basically invented by Luther out of thin air, under pressure in a debate). So why the irrational double standard? You can base that false tradition of men on nothing whatever in Scripture, yet demand all kinds of explicit biblical proofs for every Marian doctrine, as if that is necessary, when there is plenty about Mary in Scripture: just not enough to your arbitrary taste. And what is there many Protestants don't or can''t see, under the principle of "no man is so blind as he who will not see."

I don't expect you to accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but if you are going to challenge it, at least come in prepared.

Why has this been an issue with a minority of Protestants in the last 200 years?

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 – Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Rom. 9:11 – God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 – Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 – Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

 

[mjrhealth]

@kepha31 still trying to glorify that idol, when will you let it go. You have absolutely no evidence that Mary was sinless, only that Idol in your heart, they are not one and the same. God had no point to make her sinless, because what you are doing is what would happen if He did, make her and Idol,

Deu_5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

when men create idols they need to defend them.

 

[twinc]

@kepha31 still trying to glorify that idol, when will you let it go. You have absolutely no evidence that Mary was sinless, only that Idol in your heart, they are not one and the same. God had no point to make her sinless, because what you are doing is what would happen if He did, make her and Idol,

Deu_5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

when men create idols they need to defend them.

how do you or will you defend Isa 48:8 and in particular Ps 51:5 = behold I was shapen in inquity, a sinner from the moment of conception - twinc

 

[Marymog]

And again, Mary - I conceded the fact that it might not have been what you meant to say - but what you DID say was heresy.
Not trying to argue with you.

And, for the record - there is nothing wrong with the practicing the stretching and physical exercise of Yoga.
It is the metaphysical and transcendental aspects of Yoga and that is not something that Christians should not be involved with.

You are arguing with me but I am not sure WHY!!!

I basically already said that (about yoga). Did you read what I wrote???????

Slow down, take a chill pill and read what is written to you and put it in context my fellow Christian....

All in love....Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

You are arguing with me but I am not sure WHY!!!

lol, the Book will tell you that too i guess

 

[michaelvpardo]

Translation:
"Oops - I stuck my foot in my mouth again!"

Yes you did.