The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[BreadOfLife]

You can not use this with Mary, SHE COULD have relations after birthing Christ, (Mary did not did, Nor did her husband)
this is called foolishly using scripture out of context to support a few which falls apart

NOT when you understand that Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - then she COULDN'T have relations with a man.

In the OT, there was the Ark of the Covenant, which held the symbols of Gods power and mercy within it.
In the NT, Mary is the Ark of the NEW Covenant, Jesus - who IS God's power and mercy itself.

Here is a short list of Scriptural comparisons of the OT Type that was the Ark of the Covenant - and the NT fulfillment that is Mary, Ark of the NEW Covenant:

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the Covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

It's also important to remember that chapter and verse were not added by the Church until the Middle Ages. Before this, ALL of the Books of Scripture were read as one long letter with no breaks.

That being said - in the Book of Revelation, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1): A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says: She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read: She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

There is simply no getting around the fact that the Woman here in Revelation 12 is Mary.
It also symbolizes Israel in another sense. This is knows as polyvalent symbolism.

 

[user]

The written Scriptures are God's sole communication with mankind. Anything written outside of the Bible is the uninspired authorship of man. Any doctrine that is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible is a fraud and a deception. Paul said that even if an angel came and preached a different gospel than the one he preached, let him be cursed. If the Roman Catholic Church is preaching doctrines purporting to be the gospel of Christ and they are not consistent with the gospel that Paul preached then it is presenting a fraudulent gospel.

Yes I agree...
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[user]

he does not think he needs help. He thinks we just are out to attack him

I have tried diligently to reach him ... in the end he cannot be trusted with honest dialog. For example, in post #1924 he knew very well the meaning of the colors Cardinals in Red and Bishops in Purple, but denying this, he posted deceiving pics (take a look The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever).

Here are a few scriptures he failed to address as it pertains also to "not knowing Mary UNTILL Jesus was born"...

Acts 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till(G2193) they had killed Paul.

1 Corinthians 16:8 But I will tarry at Ephesus until(G2193) Pentecost.

John 9:18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until(G2193) they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

And finally what he does not wish us to know...

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till(G2193) she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Ummmm, then WHY was the Hebrew word "Until" (`ad) used here in 2 Sam. 6:23??
You need to explain why.

You ALSO need to explain that if this is the case with 2 Sam. 6:23 - why could it cannot be the case with Matt. 1:23 . . .

I do not need to do Anything

you want to be brainwashed feel free

 

[Eternally Grateful]

NOT when you understand that Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - then she COULDN'T have relations with a man.

In the OT, there was the Ark of the Covenant, which held the symbols of Gods power and mercy within it.
In the NT, Mary is the Ark of the NEW Covenant, Jesus - who IS God's power and mercy itself.

Here is a short list of Scriptural comparisons of the OT Type that was the Ark of the Covenant - and the NT fulfillment that is Mary, Ark of the NEW Covenant:

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the Covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

It's also important to remember that chapter and verse were not added by the Church until the Middle Ages. Before this, ALL of the Books of Scripture were read as one long letter with no breaks.

That being said - in the Book of Revelation, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1): A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says: She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read: She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

There is simply no getting around the fact that the Woman here in Revelation 12 is Mary.
It also symbolizes Israel in another sense. This is knows as polyvalent symbolism.

Mary was a human who needed a savior

the ark held the sins of mankind not the redeemer

the redeemer was slaughtered and his blood was poured
On the ark

sorry man. Your theology is to easy to refute

 

[Truther]

In only trust GOD and his inspired writers and the God-given Authority that He gave to His Church.
I don't trust ANY translator as "inspired" - like YOU do.

Shame on you for putting so much trust in mere men . . .

You trust God and the Pope?

I didn’t know he translated your RCC Bile.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

No - I specifically addressed the word "know" as used in post #2433.

THIS is what I said:
"The Greek word used in this verse is not the usual term for "knowledge (oida) but is actually a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse (ghin-oce'-ko)."

So, you are LYING again.
If you don't want to be exposed - then STOP lying.

From preceptaustin
You were wrong each time ....here is the truth:
to a Son - The word "virgin" is not in the Greek (as it is in Mt 1:23). More literally this reads "knew her not till she had brought forth a son" (Mt 1:25ASV) where "not" is absolute negation (ou) and know is ginosko to know by experience and is the same verb used in the Septuagint to translate Ge 4:1KJV which says "And Adam knew (Lxx - ginosko) Eve his wife." Notice the important word until which means to be done up to a particular point in time, and then stopping. In short, Joseph kept Mary a virgin up to the point in time when she delivered Jesus and after that the couple had normal conjugal relations as indicated by the Gospel mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters (Mt 12:46, Mt 13:55-56, Mk 6:3

 

[Paul Christensen]

No - it's the Catholic Church if Matt. 16:8-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23, Acts 9:31, Eph. 1:22-23, and 1 Tim. 3:15.

You need to actually quote those references, because as they are, they are just numbers to me. The Roman Catholic church is not the true catholic church, it is just a cult that purports to be the true church.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I do not need to do Anything

you want to be brainwashed feel free

As a Kiwi, I have already been brainwashed. My gumboots got filled with water!

 

[BreadOfLife]

I do not need to do Anything

you want to be brainwashed feel free

In other words - you've been caught with your foot in your mouth again . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mary was a human who needed a savior
the ark held the sins of mankind not the redeemer
the redeemer was slaughtered and his blood was poured
On the ark

sorry man. Your theology is to easy to refute

WRONG.

The Ark of the Covenant held symbols of God's power and mercy.
The Ark of the New Covenant (Mary) actually held God's power and mercy itself (Jesus).

 

[BreadOfLife]

You trust God and the Pope?

I didn’t know he translated your RCC Bile.

Who said the Pope translated the Bible?? Not me.

Maybe you should put your thinking cap on . . .

 

[Paul Christensen]

Who said the Pope translated the Bible?? Not me.

Maybe you should put your thinking cap on . . .

No, what successive popes have done is to dream up doctrines that they view are superior to the Bible while having nothing in common with it. Of course, when the RCC was dominant in times past, popes could come up with any doctrine that suited their purpose, and forced people to believe and comply with it on pain of excommunication or death. And by making the reading of the Bible in any language other than Latin for hundreds of years, a capital offence, kept enquiring people from finding out whether the doctrine was true or false. So that merely perpetuated the fraudulent leadership of those hypocritical popes.

 

[BreadOfLife]

From preceptaustin
You were wrong each time ....here is the truth:
to a Son - The word "virgin" is not in the Greek (as it is in Mt 1:23). More literally this reads "knew her not till she had brought forth a son" (Mt 1:25ASV) where "not" is absolute negation (ou) and know is ginosko to know by experience and is the same verb used in the Septuagint to translate Ge 4:1KJV which says "And Adam knew (Lxx - ginosko) Eve his wife." Notice the important word until which means to be done up to a particular point in time, and then stopping. In short, Joseph kept Mary a virgin up to the point in time when she delivered Jesus and after that the couple had normal conjugal relations as indicated by the Gospel mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters (Mt 12:46, Mt 13:55-56, Mk 6:3

That's absolute nonsense and I already proved this wrong - several times now.

I also addressed the word "know" (ginosko) - AND I showed your no less than THREE Biblical instances where "Until" (heos, 'ad) does NOT require a subsequent action.
Not sure if you understand what "subsequent" means - but it basically means an action or consequence that follows.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, what successive popes have done is to dream up doctrines that they view are superior to the Bible while having nothing in common with it. Of course, when the RCC was dominant in times past, popes could come up with any doctrine that suited their purpose, and forced people to believe and comply with it on pain of excommunication or death. And by making the reading of the Bible in any language other than Latin for hundreds of years, a capital offence, kept enquiring people from finding out whether the doctrine was true or false. So that merely perpetuated the fraudulent leadership of those hypocritical popes.

This post is so historically-bankrupt that it's difficult to know just where to begin.
I guess I'll start with asking YOU to give me some proof for your statement above in RED.

Secondly - your idea that the Church kept the Bible in Latin is so that people couldn't figure out what it said is so asinine, it doesn't even deserve a response - but I'll obliterate it anyway . . .

Apparently, you don't know your history because, if you DID - you would know that about 85% of the civilized world was functionally ILLITERATE until the middle of the 19th century. This means that the Bible could have been translated into VULCAN and 85% of the population wouldn't have been able to read it anyway. There was no major need for a vernacular translations.

Now - SOME vernacular translations were copied before the invention of the printing press by unqualified people - and the result was heretical teachings all around. At the Council of Toulouse in 1229, the church forbade any unofficial translations to prevent the spread of further heresies.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You need to actually quote those references, because as they are, they are just numbers to me. The Roman Catholic church is not the true catholic church, it is just a cult that purports to be the true church.

Then YOU need to crack open a Bible and look them up.

It doesn't surprise me in the LEAST that you are nignorant with Bible verses and that they are just "numbers" to you . . .

 

[Paul Christensen]

This post is so historically-bankrupt that it's difficult to know just where to begin.
I guess I'll start with asking YOU to give me some proof for your statement above in RED.

Secondly - your idea that the Church kept the Bible in Latin is so that people couldn't figure out what it said is so asinine, it doesn't even deserve a response - but I'll obliterate it anyway . . .

Apparently, you don't know your history because, if you DID - you would know that about 85% of the civilized world was functionally ILLITERATE until the middle of the 19th century. This means that the Bible could have been translated into VULCAN and 85% of the population wouldn't have been able to read it anyway. There was no major need for a vernacular translations.

Now - SOME vernacular translations were copied before the invention of the printing press by unqualified people - and the result was heretical teachings all around. At the Council of Toulouse in 1229, the church forbade any unofficial translations to prevent the spread of further heresies.

All one has to do is to read church history to prove everything I have said. Of course, RCC church history would be quite different from any church history from any other source, and RCC members would be prohibited from reading and believing anything outside of RCC approved texts. Maybe instead of preventing the spread of further heresies, it might be to block enquiring people from finding out the truth.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Then YOU need to crack open a Bible and look them up.

It doesn't surprise me in the LEAST that you are nignorant with Bible verses and that they are just "numbers" to you . . .

If you actually quoted the verses, then we might have something to go on with a meaningful discussion instead of you feeling that you have to abuse and insult me because I have a different view of the church than you have.

Come on! Show some respect, and get off the pot of accusation and abuse and hitting me over the head with words in bold. If you can't discuss these things without having to attack me on a personal level then give it up.

 

[BreadOfLife]

All one has to do is to read church history to prove everything I have said. Of course, RCC church history would be quite different from any church history from any other source, and RCC members would be prohibited from reading and believing anything outside of RCC approved texts. Maybe instead of preventing the spread of further heresies, it might be to block enquiring people from finding out the truth.

No - all YOU have to do is prove it.
YOU are the one making these asinine claims - so YOU are on the hook here.

CAN you do that??

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you actually quoted the verses, then we might have something to go on with a meaningful discussion instead of you feeling that you have to abuse and insult me because I have a different view of the church than you have.

Come on! Show some respect, and get off the pot of accusation and abuse and hitting me over the head with words in bold. If you can't discuss these things without having to attack me on a personal level then give it up.

Soooooo, I should be "nice" and just sit there as YOU post moronic things like:
"The Roman Catholic church is not the true catholic church, it is just a cult that purports to be the true church."

Sorry - but I refuse to just sit there and allow YOU to make these kinds of asinine claims.
You need to PROVE your claims - or simply admit that you can't.

Also - you need to know that what I posted were Scripture verses and NOT "just numbers" - so if you're going to have an intelligent conversation on a Bible forum, you need to understand this.