The Goddess Man Has Made

[Raeneske]

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.

Selene,

I posted scriptures for you, to see the very plain text. Everyone in the human family has sinned, except the Saviour. You can re-read the verses to clarify that fact. Mary indeed claims she has sinned, by rejoicing in her Saviour. Yes, the Roman Church does contradict the Bible.

"Sin Nature" does not appear directly, but it appears as "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:

Isaiah 66:20 does not suggest that the vessel was once never dirty. It was just instructed that the vessel shall be clean, as God instructs people to clean the vessels in which they bring offerings.

Leviticus 6:28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.

Leviticus 11:32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.

As a sinner, how are you cleansed from all your filthiness when you sin?

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

You cannot claim that Mary is sinless, and coincide that with the Bible. Scripture is plain.

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[dragonfly]

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".

We can always depend on you, Mungo, for a verbal tirade, regardless of the topic you wish to support. Facts are not your strong point, and Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source, whereas Hislop's book was researched from literature in a number of different languages, and translated by experts.

 

[Mungo]

We can always depend on you, Mungo, for a verbal tirade, regardless of the topic you wish to support. Facts are not your strong point, and Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source, whereas Hislop's book was researched from literature in a number of different languages, and translated by experts.

Hislop's book gave the initial impression of being scholarly and was full of footnotes and sketches to show extensive similarities and which gave an impression of serious scholarship. However there are two major problems with his thesis:

Firstly his claims turned out to be bogus. He simply invented information about Babylonia which doesn’t exist. Likewise his diagrams and sketches were just a product of his imagination.

Secondly he made links without any causal evidence, avoiding more realistic causal links. For example he claimed that the Babylonians offered round wafers to their God, the same as Catholic hosts at the Catholic Mass. His Babylonian claim was false, he showed no link as to how the Catholic Church took this from Babylon, and ignored the obvious point that the Matzo bread which Jesus broke at the last supper was flat round unleavened bread. Also manna is described as round (Ex 16:14) and like wafers (Ex16:31)

An Evangelical Minister, Ralph Woodrow, produced a book based on Hislop's called Babylon Mystery Religion, which sold widely and was translated into several languages. He says that few challenged his book. One who did was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in Southern California. Woodrow writes:
“Being a Christian and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me evidence that Hislop was not a reliable historian. As a result I realised that I needed to go though Hislop's work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

As I did this it became clear – Hislop's “history” was often only mythology. Even though some myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths cannot provide a sound basis for history.”

Woodrow went on the investigate Hislop's claims consulting many reliable sources. He wrote another book called The Babylonian Connection? in which he demolished Hislop's claims.

On his web site (http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html) he gives some examples and comments:
It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.

Some people believe in pursuing the truth.

Woodrow is not an apologist for the Catholic Church. In his book, despite demolishing Hislop's claims, he spends one chapter criticising the Catholic Church for what he calls "excess baggage", He says "It would be more appropriate to say that "some" things have been taught in the Roman Catholic Church that "dishonour" God....."

Added: The quote from Wikipedia that The Two Babylons is a
"tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]

The two bits in quotation marks are referenced in footnotes [3][4] in Wikipedia as from
[3] Book Review: Plan 9 From Saturday Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005
[4] Book Review: Honesty is the Best Policy Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005

The reviewer of Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? says:
The Babylon Connection? is a devastating critique of Hislop and his many imitators. Almost from the first page, the shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty, and personal prejudices of Alexander Hislop are quite evident. By the end of the first chapter, none except those suffering from “black helicopters over America” paranoia could possibly view Hislop as anything but a crackpot and a fraud. Woodrow presses on, however, and in painstaking detail demonstrates Hislop’s lack of scholarly integrity. As one who was formerly believed Hislop to be a credible source, Woodrow understands the mindset of those fooled by this belief system and he leaves their delusions in tatters. When it is over, nothing of Hislop’s rhetorical edifice is left standing.

 

[Rex]

Please can you explain this statement.

Thank you

http://ldolphin.org/semir.html

SEMIRAMIS, QUEEN OF BABYLON​

by Bryce Self​

​

BABYLONIAN RELIGION By Harry A. Ironside

​

And now you tell me how Mary according to catholic lore can be from the seed of Eve a daughter of Eve and be sinless as well as not having the stain of the original sin, which affected Eve and all of her children "all mankind"?
Gen 3:15


Do you simply pick and chose what you believe the bible says and toss the rest? It would appear so.

But that link, as far back as ancient religions go there has always been a Queen of Heaven. the catholics queen of heaven is nothing new in fact its found at the very root of false anti God religions.


Jeremiah 44
17 mBut we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to nthe queen of heaven oand pour out drink offerings to her, pas we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. 18 But since we left off making offerings to nthe queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything qand have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” 19 And the women said,2 “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven rand poured out drink offerings to her, was it swithout our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

Counterfeit religions


Jeremiah 44:16
16 “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you.

{17} is above and similar to you they turned instead to the queen of heaven

As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord
That would be the record of word found in the bible and everyone here by now should know, catholics spend a lot of time bashing the bible. And promoting traditions instead.

 

[dragonfly]

Hello Mungo,

I don't believe your rhetoric, nor that of an author who went to the trouble of writing a book to refute the plain facts of the occult connections flaunted by the RCC. Your organisation, which works so hard to reduce the real significance of Christ's death on the cross, does not take the Bible seriously, except to give pointers as to how to displease God more. It is no secret that 'Catholic' believers have gone to much trouble down the centuries to remove the testimony of God from the public square, lately joined by secularists who have a similar interest in drowning out truth with a different cry.

He simply invented information about Babylonia which doesn’t exist.

It may not exist any more, but there is more proof that it once existed by the use he made of it, than that no-one can find it today.

Hi Rae,

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.

Exactly! But the reason He did not sin, despite having a body made 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', was that His spiritual nature was of God, not Satan.

Please will you look at the difference Young's Literal makes in certain verses from Romans 5 through the first part of Romans 8? You should notice the definite article applied to 'sin', in a number of places. This is what Jesus did not have. He did not have 'the sin' in Him, despite God having prepared Him a body 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', (in Mary's womb), which grew up into the man who died for us. Psalm 22:9, 10, Hebrews 10:5.

Here's a sample from Young's Literal:

Romans 6:1 What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound? 2 let it not be! we who died to the sin--how shall we still live in it? 3 are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized? 4 we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk. 5 For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, [so] also we shall be of the rising again; 6 this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin; 7 for he who hath died hath been set free from the sin.

Please explain how Jesus Christ could have qualified as being a lamb without blemish, if deep down in His inner man He was in bondage to sin like Adam's children?

 

[Raeneske]

Hello Mungo,

I don't believe your rhetoric, nor that of an author who went to the trouble of writing a book to refute the plain facts of the occult connections flaunted by the RCC. Your organisation, which works so hard to reduce the real significance of Christ's death on the cross, does not take the Bible seriously, except to give pointers as to how to displease God more. It is no secret that 'Catholic' believers have gone to much trouble down the centuries to remove the testimony of God from the public square, lately joined by secularists who have a similar interest in drowning out truth with a different cry.


It may not exist any more, but there is more proof that it once existed by the use he made of it, than that no-one can find it today.


Hi Rae,


Exactly! But the reason He did not sin, despite having a body made 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', was that His spiritual nature was of God, not Satan.

Please will you look at the difference Young's Literal makes in certain verses from Romans 5 through the first part of Romans 8? You should notice the definite article applied to 'sin', in a number of places. This is what Jesus did not have. He did not have 'the sin' in Him, despite God having prepared Him a body 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', (in Mary's womb), which grew up into the man who died for us. Psalm 22:9, 10, Hebrews 10:5.

Here's a sample from Young's Literal:

Romans 6:1 What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound? 2 let it not be! we who died to the sin--how shall we still live in it? 3 are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized? 4 we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk. 5 For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, [so] also we shall be of the rising again; 6 this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin; 7 for he who hath died hath been set free from the sin.

Please explain how Jesus Christ could have qualified as being a lamb without blemish, if deep down in His inner man He was in bondage to sin like Adam's children?

First, I know nothing of this Young's Literal translation. If it's anything like these newer translations, I do not trust it.

Jesus wasn't in bondage to sin. You have to actually sin, to be in bondage to sin. Did Jesus sin? No. Thus, he was never in bondage. Have you and I sinned? Yes. We were in bondage to sin. Sin cannot having binding claims on you, if you don't sin.

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Romans 6:16-20 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Jesus came in our flesh. Now, I'm not denying that he was both fully God, and fully man. That I know. Jesus had the same flesh that we have, yet he overcame because He trusted in His Father.

Hebrews 4:15 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.

He did not "cheat", for lack of a better word. He became like us, so he can know how to succour us, who are tempted. He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. He took on our flesh, the seed of Abraham, and not the nature of angels, but of sinful flesh.

Hebrews 2:16-18 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

I'm sure you mean no harm, but I must tell you what I see. When original sin is brought up, it effectually destroys the fact that Jesus literally became a man, in all aspects. That was the way He could be subjected to all our temptations, and know how to succour us. If he wasn't in our sinful flesh, to the full extent, and only had "part" of our sinful flesh, how could he have been tempted like we are? Original sin tries to say Jesus came in "partly" our flesh, that way it can still try to technically say, "Well, He came in our flesh." No, it's preaching a completely different flesh. It belittles the fact that Jesus literally became a man, grew up as a man, completely overcame Satan as a man, and died as a man.

Original sin, gives Jesus an "advantage" over us. But how could he have felt the full force of temptations that we have felt that way?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Rae,

Young's Literal is not new, and, it is respected. Young was well-versed in more languages than Hebrew and Greek, and his translation shows a love of the truth which is definitely missing in some translations, and those from certain minority texts.

But how could he have felt the full force of temptations that we have felt that way?

I am not talking about the doctrine of Original Sin. I can see that is difficult to explain from scripture.  However, if we stick with scripture as it stands, look at Romans 5:12 - 14, where I want to show you a different way to understand what I'm trying to get at. (I know you love the word of God, and there is much to be factored in to our understanding, both through sound teaching and the revelation of the Holy Spirit.)

Romans 5:12 '... even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; 13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law; 14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

As I stated before, we all died in the loins of Adam regardless of whether we had sinned or not. This is an eternal truth. The explanation you gave here, although it is currently popular, is not what the scriptures teach - especially not what the law served to teach. (A close reading of New Testament testimony tells us that even when keeping the law perfectly, a person could never have a clean conscience.)

Jesus wasn't in bondage to sin. You have to actually sin, to be in bondage to sin. Did Jesus sin? No. Thus, he was never in bondage. Have you and I sinned? Yes. We were in bondage to sin. Sin cannot having binding claims on you, if you don't sin.

What Paul explained shows us that even if we had never sinned, we would have died because of the effect of Adam's sin upon us. This is not so with Jesus. He was 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', but He was also the word of God made flesh. Death did not reign over Him, like it reigned over Adam and those born in his likeness. Genesis 5:1, 2, 3.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, [alive] and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

If you look at Zechariah 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him, seeing Joshua as a type of Christ to come, if Satan was in His face like he was in Joshua's face, then Christ was tempted mercilessly the whole time He was on earth. Not only the temptations in the wilderness, but also on the cross. If you do a study of the significance of Psalm 22:12, 13, 16, 20, 21, you'll understand why He was feeling the way the intervening verses describe. All hell was let loose on Him, and God graciously covered Him in darkness while He battled on our behalf to overcome Satan.

Psalm 7:13,

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ...'

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

John 10:6 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. He was not like us: John 8:44.

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

How could the Man who saw Abraham rejoice over His day, and watched Satan fall as lightening from heaven, be subject to the power of death, unless He made Himself subject to it, as Paul states in Phil 2?

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

If Christ had been blemished by the same kind of 'sinful flesh' as we have because of our relationship to Adam, He could not have died on our behalf. Malachi speaks of God's disgust with imperfect sacrifices.

All this said, your comments have made me think about this afresh in the light of Paul calling Christ 'the last Adam'. Still, Paul's use of the word 'likeness', could have been avoided by him, if he'd believed Christ had sinful flesh as you say. (At least, this is what I think you are saying - that Christ's flesh was essentially sinful, but, He didn't act on it.) The problem with your thinking is that scripture gives you no basis for that interpretation of what is written.

 

[Mungo]

Hello Mungo,

I don't believe your rhetoric, nor that of an author who went to the trouble of writing a book to refute the plain facts of the occult connections flaunted by the RCC. Your organisation, which works so hard to reduce the real significance of Christ's death on the cross, does not take the Bible seriously, except to give pointers as to how to displease God more. It is no secret that 'Catholic' believers have gone to much trouble down the centuries to remove the testimony of God from the public square, lately joined by secularists who have a similar interest in drowning out truth with a different cry.

You seem to prefer your unsubstantiated opinions to facts.

I gave you the work of someone who has done serious investigations into Hislop's claims but you prefer your prejudices.

Oh well, if that is the level you live at then so be it. There is no point in discussing anything with you.

I can see where you are coming from.

It may not exist any more, but there is more proof that it once existed by the use he made of it, than that no-one can find it today.

It's not that Babylon doesn't exist. It's that the information doesn't exist.

Hislop simply made stuff up.

http://ldolphin.org/semir.html

SEMIRAMIS, QUEEN OF BABYLON​

by Bryce Self​

​

BABYLONIAN RELIGION By Harry A. Ironside

​

Hislop again. See post #263

But that link, as far back as ancient religions go there has always been a Queen of Heaven. the catholics queen of heaven is nothing new in fact its found at the very root of false anti God religions.


Jeremiah 44
17 mBut we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to nthe queen of heaven oand pour out drink offerings to her, pas we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. 18 But since we left off making offerings to nthe queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything qand have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” 19 And the women said,2 “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven rand poured out drink offerings to her, was it swithout our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

Counterfeit religions

Yes, Jeremiah was prophecying against false religions. But that doesn't mean there are not true religions

Mary as Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with the pagan cult of the queen of heaven condemned in Jeremiah but relates to her position of the mother of Jesus who is the King of Heaven (and sits on the throne of David).

Giving honour to the true Queen of Heaven is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago gave honour to a false queen of heaven, just as worshipping the one true God is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago worshipped false gods.

 

[Raeneske]

Hi Rae,

Young's Literal is not new, and, it is respected. Young was well-versed in more languages than Hebrew and Greek, and his translation shows a love of the truth which is definitely missing in some translations, and those from certain minority texts.

I am not talking about the doctrine of Original Sin. I can see that is difficult to explain from scripture. However, if we stick with scripture as it stands, look at Romans 5:12 - 14, where I want to show you a different way to understand what I'm trying to get at. (I know you love the word of God, and there is much to be factored in to our understanding, both through sound teaching and the revelation of the Holy Spirit.)

Romans 5:12 '... even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; 13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law; 14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

As I stated before, we all died in the loins of Adam regardless of whether we had sinned or not. This is an eternal truth. The explanation you gave here, although it is currently popular, is not what the scriptures teach - especially not what the law served to teach. (A close reading of New Testament testimony tells us that even when keeping the law perfectly, a person could never have a clean conscience.)


What Paul explained shows us that even if we had never sinned, we would have died because of the effect of Adam's sin upon us. This is not so with Jesus. He was 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', but He was also the word of God made flesh. Death did not reign over Him, like it reigned over Adam and those born in his likeness. Genesis 5:1, 2, 3.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, [alive] and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

If you look at Zechariah 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him, seeing Joshua as a type of Christ to come, if Satan was in His face like he was in Joshua's face, then Christ was tempted mercilessly the whole time He was on earth. Not only the temptations in the wilderness, but also on the cross. If you do a study of the significance of Psalm 22:12, 13, 16, 20, 21, you'll understand why He was feeling the way the intervening verses describe. All hell was let loose on Him, and God graciously covered Him in darkness while He battled on our behalf to overcome Satan.

Psalm 7:13,

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ...'

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

John 10:6 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. He was not like us: John 8:44.

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

How could the Man who saw Abraham rejoice over His day, and watched Satan fall as lightening from heaven, be subject to the power of death, unless He made Himself subject to it, as Paul states in Phil 2?

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

If Christ had been blemished by the same kind of 'sinful flesh' as we have because of our relationship to Adam, He could not have died on our behalf. Malachi speaks of God's disgust with imperfect sacrifices.

All this said, your comments have made me think about this afresh in the light of Paul calling Christ 'the last Adam'. Still, Paul's use of the word 'likeness', could have been avoided by him, if he'd believed Christ had sinful flesh as you say. (At least, this is what I think you are saying - that Christ's flesh was essentially sinful, but, He didn't act on it.) The problem with your thinking is that scripture gives you no basis for that interpretation of what is written.

I see what you're trying to say now, but I want you to think of something. When a lamb was being sacrificed, did it have different flesh than all the other sheep? No, right? The only different was, that lamb was completely perfect, despite having the same exact flesh as all the other lambs.

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

There is only one kind of flesh for mankind, it's not that of an angels, or fish, or birds flesh. Christ had to come in that one flesh, else, how could he have been the seed of Abraham? How could He have been in likeness of sinful flesh, if in fact he truly had different flesh?

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

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:

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

I think what you may be looking at, is that Christ was different than us. I can say, yes - Christ was combined %100 man, yet He was God, He chose not to sin, and He walked not in the flesh, though He was of our flesh.

Romans 8:8-9 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1 Timonthy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Okay. Now what you say Paul explained, and what i'm seeing Paul explain seem like two different things.

Romans 5:12-14 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: For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

By one man (Adam, of course), sin entered into the world, and death by sin. Now, I can understand that through Adam all die, and all sin. But we don't have Adam's sin, because we do not reveive a blot for the iniquity of Adam. But because we are his seed, he passed death down to us, having degraded his own nature. Hence, all humans now have sinful flesh. So, death passed upon all men, for all have sinned. For example, Cain did not choose to eat the forbidden fruit, but he murdered his brother. Paul then confirms this by saying, death reigned over us though we did not sin as Adam did, but we still sinned.

It's like a mother who though pregnant, gets severly intoxicated every 2 weeks. The child will not receive the blot for such debauchery, but the child will be affected. The childs taste, senses, and decisions are going to be affected by that women's actions. Now the child will be more inclined to do certain things. Yet, though the mother affected the child deeply, when the child comes to the age of accountability, the child still has the choice, though naturally inclined to do one thing, the child may choose another. This is us. We still had the choice, though naturally inclined, we still chose sin and death. Christ though, did not choose sin and death. He chose life, and righteousness. He is like the kid, who though surrounded by all wickedness, and affected by the decisions of His ancestors, He still chose life, and righteousness, despite the natural inclinations to sin. Hence, what power could death hold over such a Man? None! Death only holds power of those who sin, and only those that choose to sin, can death hold it's binding claims over. Thus, by Christ's actions, he has brought life to us, who were dead, because death could not hold that Perfect One.

 

[Rex]

Yes, Jeremiah was prophecying against false religions. But that doesn't mean there are not true religions

Mary as Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with the pagan cult of the queen of heaven condemned in Jeremiah but relates to her position of the mother of Jesus who is the King of Heaven (and sits on the throne of David).

Giving honour to the true Queen of Heaven is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago gave honour to a false queen of heaven, just as worshipping the one true God is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago worshipped false gods.

Yes, Jeremiah was prophecying against false religions. But that doesn't mean there are not true religions

That is rather obvious
But its your religion that mirrors the queen of heaven not mine

Mary as Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with the pagan cult of the queen of heaven condemned in Jeremiah but relates to her position of the mother of Jesus who is the King of Heaven (and sits on the throne of David).

It has everything to do with it all threw history the queen of heaven gave birth to the god man.
She has been worshiped since Nimrod began building Babel. She is seen in every kingdom described by Daniel. And some that are not Like Egypt.

Giving honour to the true Queen of Heaven is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago gave honour to a false queen of heaven, just as worshipping the one true God is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago worshipped false gods.

Why do you suppose that Jesus and the Apostles are silent in the NT about your Mary?
Its because the counterfeit has been presented to mankind since Gen, before Abraham.
Mary was not a demi god, sinless; she also shared in Eves fallen condition.
She was a chosen vessel in the same fashion God chose Abram, Jacob, Mosses, David, the Apostles, Paul ect ect

By portraying Mary as you do you are following an ancient pagan belief system, and not the true work of God.

Jesus was provided a chance to testify of Mary, But instead what did he say?
Luke 11
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Do you chose to hear the word of God or the traditions of men?
Your just like Jeremiah described ------>>> you are the same today

Jeremiah 44:16
16 “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you.

I have no preconceived notion your going to change your mind, If that were true the handful of Catholics on this board would have waken up a long time ago. I like it says "you will not listen"

 

[Selene]

Selene,

I posted scriptures for you, to see the very plain text. Everyone in the human family has sinned, except the Saviour. You can re-read the verses to clarify that fact. Mary indeed claims she has sinned, by rejoicing in her Saviour. Yes, the Roman Church does contradict the Bible.

"Sin Nature" does not appear directly, but it appears as "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:

Isaiah 66:20 does not suggest that the vessel was once never dirty. It was just instructed that the vessel shall be clean, as God instructs people to clean the vessels in which they bring offerings.

Leviticus 6:28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.

Leviticus 11:32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.

As a sinner, how are you cleansed from all your filthiness when you sin?

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

You cannot claim that Mary is sinless, and coincide that with the Bible. Scripture is plain.

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I understood the biblical quote that all have sinned except Christ. But then how do you explain this biblical verse below?

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

(Taken from the King James Bible)

If you're going to quote Romans 3:23, then you need to find an explanation for Romans 5:14, which is in the same letter that St. Paul wrote. There's a difference between original sin and personal sins. Romans 3:23 was speaking of personal sins. Mary was not conceived with original sin because she was the New Ark of the Covenant. Since we are discussing about the Immaculate Conception, then Romans 3:23 does not apply to her.

Romans 5:14 was referring to the Original Sin that came from Adam, so this would apply to the Immaculate Conception. Romans 5:14 said that even those who had original sin also died. Romans 5:14 were speaking of the infants who died. These infants or babes did not commit any personal sins because they were too young, but death reigned on them also because of the original sin.

God preserved Mary from Original Sin because God already chose her for a special purpose. Mary did not save herself. Because of God's salvation plan, it was God who rescued Mary from Original Sin, and that is why she praised God as her savior for He had done great things for her.

Yet, you have not refuted anything I have said of the Old Testament scripture. As I pointed out earlier, we believe that Mary was born without Original Sin because she was the the New Ark of the Covenant who physically carried Christ in her womb. Mary never claimed that she sinned. In fact, she never said, she sinned. She praised God her savior because like everyone else, she also needed a savior even though she did not have any sins. Romans 5:14 shows that there are some who have not sinned....but even these people needed a savior.

 

[Raeneske]

I understood the biblical quote that all have sinned except Christ. But then how do you explain this biblical verse below?

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

(Taken from the King James Bible)

If you're going to quote Romans 3:23, then you need to find an explanation for Romans 5:14, which is in the same letter that St. Paul wrote. We already the answer to this.

Yet, you have not refuted anything I have said of the Old Testament scripture. As I pointed out earlier, we believe that Mary was born without Original Sin because she was the the New Ark of the Covenant who physically carried Christ in her womb. Mary never claimed that she sinned. In fact, she never said, she sinned. She praised God her savior because like everyone else, she also needed a savior even though she did not have any sins. Romans 5:14 shows that there are some who have not sinned....but even these people needed a savior.

Selene,

You didn't even finish the verse.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

This is not saying they did not sin, it says they did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression; they sinned, but not the same way Adam did. Thus the Bible is once in again in harmony, that all have sinned. The sinner needs a Saviour, not the sinless. If we say anyone has not sinned, we are making Jesus look like a liar. To say Mary was sinless, is to say the Bible is wrong in many places, and even Mary's words are said to be filled with lies. Again, the sinless have no need of a Saviour, but it's very clear, Mary was not sinless.

You have continually stated that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, you've tied that with Mary being sinless. She was not sinless. She was a woman, who was highly blessed of God, yet she still sinned. The entire Bible, even Mary is plain.

 

[Selene]

Selene,

You didn't even finish the verse.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

This is not saying they did not sin, it says they did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression; they sinned, but not the same way Adam did. Thus the Bible is once in again in harmony, that all have sinned. The sinner needs a Saviour, not the sinless. If we say anyone has not sinned, we are making Jesus look like a liar. To say Mary was sinless, is to say the Bible is wrong in many places, and even Mary's words are said to be filled with lies. Again, the sinless have no need of a Saviour, but it's very clear, Mary was not sinless.

You have continually stated that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, you've tied that with Mary being sinless. She was not sinless. She was a woman, who was highly blessed of God, yet she still sinned. The entire Bible, even Mary is plain.

Raeneske, I was editing my post so you missed what I edited. This is what I said:

Romans 3:23 was speaking of personal sins. Mary was not conceived with original sin because she was the New Ark of the Covenant. Since we are discussing about the Immaculate Conception, then Romans 3:23 does not apply to her.


Romans 5:14 was referring to the Original Sin that came from Adam, so this would apply to the Immaculate Conception. Romans 5:14 said that even those who had original sin also died. Romans 5:14 were speaking of the infants who died. These infants or babes did not commit any personal sins because they were too young, but death reigned on them also because of the original sin.

God preserved Mary from Original Sin because God already chose her for a special purpose. Mary did not save herself. Because of God's salvation plan, it was God who rescued Mary from Original Sin, and that is why she praised God as her savior for He had done great things for her.

Adam's transgression was disobedience. So, these people did not sin after Adam's transgression because Adam's transgression was a personal sin. These are infants who did not commit any personal sins.

 

[Raeneske]

Raeneske, I was editing my post so you missed what I edited. This is what I said:

Romans 3:23 was speaking of personal sins. Mary was not conceived with original sin because she was the New Ark of the Covenant. Since we are discussing about the Immaculate Conception, then Romans 3:23 does not apply to her.


Romans 5:14 was referring to the Original Sin that came from Adam, so this would apply to the Immaculate Conception. Romans 5:14 said that even those who had original sin also died. Romans 5:14 were speaking of the infants who died. These infants or babes did not commit any personal sins because they were too young, but death reigned on them also because of the original sin.

God preserved Mary from Original Sin because God already chose her for a special purpose. Mary did not save herself. Because of God's salvation plan, it was God who rescued Mary from Original Sin, and that is why she praised God as her savior for He had done great things for her.

Adam's transgression was disobedience. So, these people did not sin after Adam's transgression because Adam's transgression was a personal sin. These are infants who did not commit any personal sins.

Selene,

Yes, Adam's transgression was disobediance - so was every other person's sin. Adam's transgression was that he blatantly ate from the tree of knowledge. No one else did that. Only Adam, so it's not possible for them to sin the same way Adam did, as they were kicked out the Garden.

3:23 applies to them all, because all have sinned. The immaculate conception, or whatever doctrine is continually calling the Bible, Jesus, and even Mary - a liar, for all have sinned. Mary was a sinner. She called for her Saviour, because she had sinned. Not for any other reason.

 

[IanLC]

Jesus died for all sin including Mary's sin. Mary is a blessed woman having to have birthed the eternal Savior of mankind. Mary was just a minor component in the general Redeemptive plan of God. She needed a Savior and so do we all and thus Jesus Christ was sent to save us all! God bless Mary for being willing to be used by God but nothing further. She is a fellow sister in the faith and I hope to see her in that Glorious Day when Jesus is crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

 

[Mungo]

That is rather obvious
But its your religion that mirrors the queen of heaven not mine



It has everything to do with it all threw history the queen of heaven gave birth to the god man.
She has been worshiped since Nimrod began building Babel. She is seen in every kingdom described by Daniel. And some that are not Like Egypt.



Why do you suppose that Jesus and the Apostles are silent in the NT about your Mary?
Its because the counterfeit has been presented to mankind since Gen, before Abraham.
Mary was not a demi god, sinless; she also shared in Eves fallen condition.
She was a chosen vessel in the same fashion God chose Abram, Jacob, Mosses, David, the Apostles, Paul ect ect

By portraying Mary as you do you are following an ancient pagan belief system, and not the true work of God.

Jesus was provided a chance to testify of Mary, But instead what did he say?
Luke 11
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Do you chose to hear the word of God or the traditions of men?
Your just like Jeremiah described ------>>> you are the same today

Jeremiah 44:16
16 “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you.

I have no preconceived notion your going to change your mind, If that were true the handful of Catholics on this board would have waken up a long time ago. I like it says "you will not listen"

​

People have been worshipping false gods since the dawn of time but that does not mean that there is not a true God that we should worship.​

​

That Mary is the Queen of heaven is biblically based. That people have been falsely worhipping a false queen of heaven does not mean that we no should not give honour (not worship) to the true Queen of Heaven​

​

There are many things that are common between Christinaity and paganism but that does not mean that Christianity is based on paganism. That is not logical​

​

Logic requires that there are causal links to show that one developed from the other. The thesis that Catholicism is based on Babylonian mystery religions is just based on some very superfial similarities. No causal links exists.​

​

You claim that all through history a queen of heaven gave birth to a god man (though you give no evidence for that sweeping claim). By your logic, since all through history women gave birth to a god man, then Christianity is based on paganism since in Christianity a woman gave birth to a god man.

 

[Rex]

People have been worshipping false gods since the dawn of time but that does not mean that there is not a true God that we should worship.​

​

That Mary is the Queen of heaven is biblically based. That people have been falsely worhipping a false queen of heaven does not mean that we no should not give honour (not worship) to the true Queen of Heaven​

​

There are many things that are common between Christinaity and paganism but that does not mean that Christianity is based on paganism. That is not logical​

​

Logic requires that there are causal links to show that one developed from the other. The thesis that Catholicism is based on Babylonian mystery religions is just based on some very superfial similarities. No causal links exists.​

​

You claim that all through history a queen of heaven gave birth to a god man (though you give no evidence for that sweeping claim). By your logic, since all through history women gave birth to a god man, then Christianity is based on paganism since in Christianity a woman gave birth to a god man.

The secular facts from archeology you dismiss, Isis and Horis are the most well known, writings and relics are found every where.
I'm not going to repeat myself, I'll simply let you claim I never provided information, "Information that satisfies you is non existent"

That Mary is the Queen of heaven is biblically based.

She is not biblically based
and many here have pointed that out besides myself.
You should consider your signature
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Your facts rise from a single source the pontiff, your faith and your statement makes for a bit of an oxymoron don't you think?

The thesis that Catholicism is based on Babylonian mystery religions is just based on some very superfial similarities. No causal links exists.

Numerous and casual both true, right down to the RCC moving into the Pantheon and dedicating it to Mary.
Moving oboist from Egypt and standing them up in the middle of St Peters square.
All very christian isn't it.

The Pantheon (

/ˈpænθiən/ or US /ˈpænθiɒn/;[1]Latin: Pantheon,[nb 1] from Greek: Πάνθεον (ἱερόν), an adjective meaning "(temple consecrated) to all gods") is a building in Rome, Italy, commissioned by Marcus Agrippa as a temple to all the gods of Ancient Rome, and rebuilt by Emperor Hadrian in about 126 AD

The coincidents go on and on

 

[Mungo]

The secular facts from archeology you dismiss, Isis and Horis are the most well known, writings and relics are found every where.
I'm not going to repeat myself, I'll simply let you claim I never provided information, "Information that satisfies you is non existent"

You have ignored the main points I made so I will repeat them

People have been worshipping false gods since the dawn of time but that does not mean that there is not a true God that we should worship.

There are many things that are common between Christinaity and paganism but that does not mean that Christianity is based on paganism. That is not logical

Logic requires that there are causal links to show that one developed from the other. The thesis that Catholicism is based on Babylonian mystery religions is just based on some very superfial similarities. No causal links exists.

You claim that all through history a queen of heaven gave birth to a god man. By your logic, since all through history women gave birth to a god man, then Christianity is based on paganism since in Christianity a woman gave birth to a god man.



.

She is not biblically based
and many here have pointed that out besides myself.
You should consider your signature
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Your facts rise from a single source the pontiff, your faith and your statement makes for a bit of an oxymoron don't you think?

Mary being Queen of Heaven is biblically based.

Do you want to go through it?

 

[Rex]

Un-biblical pagan propaganda from the RCC doesn't float my boat
I think I've heard the most of it already.
But you believe as you see fit

 

[Mungo]

Numerous and casual both true, right down to the RCC moving into the Pantheon and dedicating it to Mary.
Moving oboist from Egypt and standing them up in the middle of St Peters square.
All very christian isn't it.

The Pantheon (

/ˈpænθiən/ or US /ˈpænθiɒn/;[1]Latin: Pantheon,[nb 1] from Greek: Πάνθεον (ἱερόν), an adjective meaning "(temple consecrated) to all gods") is a building in Rome, Italy, commissioned by Marcus Agrippa as a temple to all the gods of Ancient Rome, and rebuilt by Emperor Hadrian in about 126 AD

The coincidents go on and on

Re-using a building that someone else has been using does not mean you take over all their beliefs. That is ridiculous.

The pillar in St. Peter's square was not moved from Egypt by the Catholic Church. It was moved by the Roman Emperor Caligula and it is believed to have stood near where St. Peter (and many other Christians) were martyred. Therefore it is a sort of "witness" to Peter's martyrdom. It is topped by a bronze cross symbolising the triumph of Christ over paganism.

Is that the best you can do to link the Catholic Church to paganism?

Un-biblical pagan propaganda from the RCC doesn't float my boat
I think I've heard the most of it already.
But you believe as you see fit

So you don't want the biblical arguments.

OK, keep your prejudices intact.