Redemption ?

[101G]

well that's strike #1. but I'll give you benefit of the doubt. so what is the personal name of the Holy Spirit to baptize in then?. answer please.

PS, no I'm not JW...... :)

 

[EndTimeWine]

God calls Himself "I AM" simply because HE IS, not made just IS= "I AM" I AM the ALPHA and the OMEGA= the BEGINNING AND THE END= the beginning of creation and the end of all creation. He is the beginning of our life and is the end. Meaning He is our end, whom we seek to reach. For there is no end in Him but eternity and we are eternal in Him. Christ is the full reflection of Him and it is through His Only Begotten Son= begotten not made, for He is the Word.Nothing came into being without the Word. When the Word spoke the natural was conceived by the supernatural. Post#1 @EndTimeWine Existence of God. Therefore since all things have been given unto Christ it is in His name Yeshua (Jesus) we are saved and His name is called Emanuel= God is With Us. He is God with us. God Bless!

 

[101G]

God calls Himself "I AM" simply because HE IS, not made just IS= "I AM" I AM the ALPHA and the OMEGA= the BEGINNING AND THE END= the beginning of creation and the end of all creation. He is the beginning of our life and is the end. Meaning He is our end, whom we seek to reach. For there is no end in Him but eternity and we are eternal in Him. Christ is the full reflection of Him and it is through His Only Begotten Son= begotten not made, for He is the Word.Nothing came into being without the Word. When the Word spoke the natural was conceived by the supernatural. Post#1 @EndTimeWine Existence of God. Therefore since all things have been given unto Christ it is in His name Yeshua (Jesus) we are saved and His name is called Emanuel= God is With Us. He is God with us. God Bless!

strike #2. I AM is a verb and not a noun. and two, TITLES are not Personal name. I AM come from H1961 הָיָה hayah (haw-yaw) v. A "VERB". third, ALPHA and the OMEGA are "TITLES". so no that's not the Holy Spirit Personal Name. and fourth, Holy is his character, and Spirit is his Nature.

but all is not lost. there is one more name to BAPTIZE in. see how nice "I AM"... (smile). you can't
strike out. think, what is the "Son" Personal name to baptize in.... drum roll........ you Got it, "JESUS"/ "YESHUA". see, there is hope after all.

the Name of the Father is "JESUS"/ "YESHUA", the name of the Holy Spirit is "JESUS"/ "YESHUA", and the name of the the Son is "JESUS"/ "YESHUA".

Peace in Christ Yeshua/Jesus.

 

[BreadOfLife]

My apologies. I left out a two letter word: "of". The Catholic Church does teach she was born sinless and free from original sin.

I said that it doesn't teach "she was born a virgin herself." Of course she was. We all are born virgins. What I meant to say is that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that she was born OF a virgin.

I got the sense that someone was suggesting that.

Ahhh - well, it wasn't me.
And, you're right - the Church doesn't teach that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

,
No back- pedaling , has everything to do with being able to understand the new title some Catholics want to give her , the "Why" is important. It has to do with understanding the Dogma presented as the RCC presents it, in which, as it has been defined is incorrect, because it can NOT be supported by scripture. And Immaculate Conception does refer to Christ's conception as well as how Mary was instantly Immaculate conceived by the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit came upon her. Simply put,was it a clean spotless , conception? Conception takes place in the egg, Incarnation has do with the Holy Spirit seed being placed in that egg. When you can correctly understand "Immaculate Conception", then you will see why she is not Co-Redemptrix, and The Titles Redeemer and Saviour are reserved for Christ on every level.

And again - I'm arguing with a person who has neither the capacity nor the desire to understand what "Co" means - even though it's been explained to you repeatedly.

You also don't know very much about Catholic teaching if you think the dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Glad I am not the only one! In any sense... The Catholic Church doesn't teach that Mary's mom was a virgin when she gave birth to Mary.

Who said that the Church taught this??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ever Virgin Mary pertains to the Virginity of her soul. She is without blemish due to what Christ worked in her. It is not a sin to know your spouse in the holy matrimony of marriage hence, is what marriage between a man and woman is, under God. Joseph did not know Mary until after the birth of Jesus. This did not make her unholy, or take away from her being "BORN AGAIN" made a VIRGIN SOUL again! When God first made man his soul was pure and untainted. It is through sin that the light and VIRGINITY of the soul was changed. And our bodies became perishable. Rev. 14 .

Where do you get this nonsense?
The doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity has to do with her BODY. She was a Virgin forever - physically.

She never had marital relations with a man.

 

[FHII]

Because non-Catholics like you are obsessed with a topic you know very little about. Every forum has miles of posts about Mary by anti-Catholics who don't have a clue. You are much too hostile to discover the truth of the matter, and making things up as often as you do will put you on my ignore list.

I don't discus people I discuss doctrine. This discussion shouldn't be about Catholics, non catholics, me or you. Its about doctrine!

WHAt have I made up? Tell me! I will recant if I am wrong. I did it just a few minutes ago. And I am not hostile to truth. If YOU can't prove it to be truth don't call it sour grapes. Don't fail to prove it and blame me for your failure!

So if you want to discuss doctrine we can do so. If you want to call me hostile, uneducated (knowing little) and claim I make things up (especially when all this stuff about Mary is not supported by the Bible) then I will welcome you putting me on your ignore list.

This is the third time you made a straw man fallacy. Not once did I say Mary gave Jesus his blood makes her a co-redeemer. You made that up. And it is not Catholic theology.

Read the first 3 posts of the thread! I never said you said Mary giving Jesus blood makes her a co-redeemer! Never said you said that! YOU are making that up! Now who said that? It was twinc! He said that! Is he wrong? Then you should correct your Catholic brother! Not me!

Once again, I am not going to berate people or denominations. I want to discuss doctrine. Here are my statements on the various things we have discussed:

1. Mary is NOT a co-redeemer because she gave blood to Jesus.
2. Claiming Mary is a co-redeemer and mediator based on the notion that we all are such is faulty WHEN Mary is talked up as such so tremendously above all others. We hear so much about Mary the mediator and the co-redeemer but no one else is even mentioned as being such.
3. Mary is neither a co-redeemer nor a mediator to begin with. No such title is given to her nor anyone else. Trying to pull that doctrine out of the Bible is only done by realky stretching the scripture and playing word games with Greek dictionaries.
4. Mary was not born without original sin nor did she live a sinless life. The Bible teaches otherwise and any attempt to prove otherwise requires believing the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
5. A side conversation note: Luther did not invent sola scripura. It has been proven that many others had the same view point centuries beforehand. Many of them are called Catholic Church Fathers.

As a sidenote to that, if you want to go by the definition that sola scriptura means scripture is the only source of doctrine... Fine. Luther didn't believe that. If you want to go by the definition that scripture has the final aurhority. Fine also... Luther wasn't the first. Heck, the Bereans knew that!

These are the things I will discuss. I will not get into a flaming contest. These topics are far more important than me.

 

[101G]

Mary is NOT a co-redeemer because she gave blood to Jesus.

FHII you're correct on the very first point. a baby do not get it's blood from his mother or Father. the baby makes it's own blood. and two the baby blood and the mother blood do not even mix at any time while in the womb. anyone want to know, need to do their research.

 

[FHII]

Who said that the Church taught this??

No one. I actually believed the Catholic Church taught that for years before I figured out through research that it wasn't the case. I sensed that is where things were going in this conversation. Appearently I wasn't the only one.

 

[FHII]

FHII you're correct on the very first point. a baby do not get it's blood from his mother or Father. the baby makes it's own blood. and two the baby blood and the mother blood do not even mix at any time while in the womb. anyone want to know, need to do their research.

I may check on that later.... I have my degree in exercise physiology so I should know that. But its been 30 years since I took such classes.

I was prepared to go about it at a different route. The human blood is totally regenerated every 16 weeks. I may be wrong about that number... But the fact remains that if Mary did give any blood to Jesus (and your reseach is saying even thats not true) it didn't survive 33 years when Jesus shed it.

 

[101G]

I may check on that later.... I have my degree in exercise physiology so I should know that. But its been 30 years since I took such classes.

I was prepared to go about it at a different route. The human blood is totally regenerated every 16 weeks. I may be wrong about that number... But the fact remains that if Mary did give any blood to Jesus (and your reseach is saying even thats not true) it didn't survive 33 years when Jesus shed it.

Oh yes, all of your point are correct. and I have researched this out. had this discussion many time. but look, be blessed. I'm going to try to catch the news, it's getting interesting.

 

[EndTimeWine]

And again - I'm arguing with a person who has neither the capacity nor the desire to understand what "Co" means - even though it's been explained to you repeatedly.

You also don't know very much about Catholic teaching if you think the dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.[/QUOT

Where do you get this nonsense?
The doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity has to do with her BODY. She was a Virgin forever - physically.

She never had marital relations with a man.

No I know the Catholic teaching you do NOT know scripture: Matthew 1:24-25
.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
From the use of know in the Bible. Some Bible translations, such as the King James Bible, translate the Hebrew word יָדַע‏ (yādaʿ) as know even in sexual contexts, giving rise to lines like "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived."
know someone in the biblical sense - Wiktionary
know someone in the biblical sense - Wiktionary

Catholic revised" Matthew 1:24-25 when Joseph woke from sleep ,he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him;he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne her Son; and he called His name Jesus.

 

[EndTimeWine]

And again - I'm arguing with a person who has neither the capacity nor the desire to understand what "Co" means - even though it's been explained to you repeatedly.

You also don't know very much about Catholic teaching if you think the dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.[/QUOT
BreadOfLife said: ↑
Where do you get this nonsense?
The doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity has to do with her BODY. She was a Virgin forever - physically.

She never had marital relations with a man.
No I know the Catholic teaching you do NOT no scripture: Matthew 1:24-25
.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
From the use of know in the Bible. Some Bible translations, such as the King James Bible, translate the Hebrew word יָדַע‏ (yādaʿ) as know even in sexual contexts, giving rise to lines like "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived."
know someone in the biblical sense - Wiktionary
know someone in the biblical sense - Wiktionary

Catholic revised" Matthew 1:24-25 when Joseph woke fro sleep ,he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him;he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne her Son; and he called His name Jesus.

 

[FHII]

The Bible says Joseph didn't know (have sexual relations) until after Jesus was born. Somehow people claim she never did, but it is a cleat inference that she did. Its by a lot of mental gymnastics and inference they get around this verse and the verses where Jesus's half brothers are named and that he also had sisters.

They go about it yet they themselves would not put up with such shenanigans that they themselves perform.

 

[EndTimeWine]

The Bible says Joseph didn't know (have sexual relations) until after Jesus was born. Somehow people claim she never did, but it is a cleat inference that she did. Its by a lot of mental gymnastics and inference they get around this verse and the verses where Jesus's half brothers are named and that he also had sisters.

They go about it yet they themselves would not put up with such shenanigans that they themselves perform.

Hence , is why the RCC is the Harlot. It forms Dogma not based on scripture, and causes division and apostasy. She creates her own religion outside of scriptural doctrine. The Harlot lies about Mary and has caused people to reject her role revealed in scripture all together. She is part of the body of Christ and she should be taught about- in truth!

 

[EndTimeWine]

strike #2. I AM is a verb and not a noun. and two, TITLES are not Personal name. I AM come from H1961 הָיָה hayah (haw-yaw) v. A "VERB". third, ALPHA and the OMEGA are "TITLES". so no that's not the Holy Spirit Personal Name. and fourth, Holy is his character, and Spirit is his Nature.

but all is not lost. there is one more name to BAPTIZE in. see how nice "I AM"... (smile). you can't
strike out. think, what is the "Son" Personal name to baptize in.... drum roll........ you Got it, "JESUS"/ "YESHUA". see, there is hope after all.

the Name of the Father is "JESUS"/ "YESHUA", the name of the Holy Spirit is "JESUS"/ "YESHUA", and the name of the the Son is "JESUS"/ "YESHUA".

Peace in Christ Yeshua/Jesus.

"I Am" is what was spoken by the Word any utterance of the Word is Yeshua. And is what He said of Himself in response to Moses, when Moses asked who do I say sends me, "I AM". Yeshua has Many names and Titles , including Melchizedek. And As I said He who sees the Son sees the Father and Salvation comes by Yeshua. No I gotcha moment. But thank for the ELA lesson.

 

[epostle1]

101G:

No one. I actually believed the Catholic Church taught that for years before I figured out through research that it wasn't the case. I sensed that is where things were going in this conversation. Appearently I wasn't the only one.

Believing in heresies for years explains your confusion.
All of page 1 says nothing about Mary's blood, not from me and not from BofL. You made it up, or ran with errors by others.
The reformers taught all the Marian doctrines you object to, with mediation the only exception. Before the 19th century, every church on the planet taught her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception. Then, modernist liberal Protestants started teaching falsehoods and it has spread through Protestantism like a cancer.

 

[FHII]

it is stated 'by His blood' we are redeemed but it is not clearly stated or understood where He got His human blood from - any comments - twinc

exactly - so like this also for Mama was Mary = co redeemer - twinc

All of page 1 says nothing about Mary's blood, not from me and not from BofL. You made it up, or ran with errors by others.

Its right there! So how did I make it up? IT. WAS. TWINC! All you had to do was read the first 3 posts! Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Twinc is not a Catholic. But don't sit there and ignore the gorilla!

 

[epostle1]

While many Protestants regard Mary's perpetual virginity as a uniquely 'Catholic belief,' it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well.

I present this argument ecumenically using Scripture alone, to prove that these 'brothers' and 'sisters' are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary, and that the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is in no way refuted by the New Testament. So, let us begin in Matthew.

Matthew 13:55 -- Jesus at Nazareth
-- carpenter's son
-- mother named Mary
-- brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
-- sisters 'with us

Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion


'Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.'

This 'Mary' is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55.

Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection

'After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.'

This 'other Mary' certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus.

It's interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as 'Jesus' mother.' (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase 'His mother.') It's unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus' mother are apparently two different women. But first, let's turn to Mark.

Mark 6:3 -- Jesus at Nazareth (possibly the original source)

-- 'Is he not the carpenter?' (Jesus had taken over the family business)

-- 'The son of Mary' (Very unusual in a Jewish context, in which a son is the son of the father, not the mother)

-- brothers James, JOSE, Judas, and Simon

The same list as in Matt 13:55, with the exception of 'Jose' in place of Matthew's Joseph -- really the same name in Hebrew (Yoshef).

-- 'sisters are here with us'

Both in Matthew's account, and more clearly here in Mark's, this phrase seems to suggest that these particular 'brothers' of Jesus lived elsewhere. (Could they have been traveling with Jesus as His followers?)

Mark 15:40 -- The Crucifixion

'Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF THE YOUNGER JAMES AND OF JOSE, and Salome.'

Here, Matthew's 'Mary the mother of James and Joseph' reappears as 'the mother of ...James and of Jose,' corresponding to Mark's reference to Jesus' 'brothers' James and Jose at Nazareth in 6:3. If one compares Matthew and Mark's accounts of Jesus at Nazareth with that of their accounts of the crucifixion, it becomes abundantly clear that they are speaking about the same two relatives of Jesus, whose mother -- like Jesus' -- happened to be named Mary:

NAZARETH CRUCIFIXION

Matthew: James and Joseph James and Joseph

Mark: James and Jose James and Jose

And so, Mark continues...

Mark 15:47 -- Jesus' burial

'Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSE watched where He was laid.'

Jose corresponds to the one mentioned in Mark 6:3 and 15:40.

Mark 16:1 -- The Resurrection

'When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint Him.'

The same three companions appear again. Here, Mary is called 'the mother of James' (a variant of 'the mother of Jose' in 15:47). However, there is still no mention, or even a vague implication, that this woman is also the mother of Jesus; but merely a background character like Salome.

Luke 24:10 -- The Resurrection

'The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES; the others who accompanied them also ...'

Again, the 'mother of James,' but not the mother of Jesus. And, like Matthew and Mark (in 3:35), the author of Luke always refers to the Virgin Mary as Jesus' mother (See: Luke 1:43, 2:33-34, 2:51, 8:19, Acts 1:14).

'Others' (aka, Salome and Suzanna, etc.)

John 19:25 -- The Crucifixion

'Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and HIS MOTHER'S SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdala.'

This mysterious 'Mary' appears again; this time called 'Mary the wife of Clopas.' If this passage is speaking about three women, rather than four (as it almost certainly is), the comma after 'his mother's sister' may be identifying Clopas' wife as the sister (or 'tribal-relative') of Jesus' mother. This would explain the gospel writers' use of the Greek word 'adelphos' (as a translation of the Hebrew 'ah'), which could mean brother (or sister in the feminine), as well as cousin, nephew, relative, etc. If Clopas' wife was the sister (i.e., close, tribal relative) of Jesus' mother, then Clopas' sons, James and Joseph (Jose), could very well be called Jesus' 'brethren' (i.e., part of His extended tribal family).

This seems to fit, since neither James and Joseph/Jose (nor any of the 'brothers') are EVER called the sons of Joseph.

It is also quite possible that, as John's gospel so often does, this reference to Mary as 'wife of Clopas' is a conscious intention to clear up any questions about the 'mother of James and Joseph (Jose)' in the Synoptics -- that is, to clearly distinguish her from Jesus' mother.