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

[Enow]

Your entire argument is built on FALSE premises.

Let's start with your idea that the OT Type of the Ark and the NT Fulfillment that is Mary is off because secular myths about the virgin birth of demigods, etc. What does this have to do with authentic Biblical Typology?? The Scriptural examples I gave you are some of the most accurate and spot-on types anf fulfillments you will find in Scripture.

I admit that the two topic is not the same but you overlooked my point of looking to the Bible for that truth.

I was talking about the misapplication of scripture in lieu of how sinners would mock the Bible as not having original content. The truth is in the Bible for why your misapplication of scripture is not found just as the origin of the flood and Mary being a virgin when she had Jesus can be found in the Bible as an event that has happened in real life.

{QUOTE]David's question regarding the arrival of the Ark - in the hill country of Judea is almost VERBATIM as to what Elizabeth said to Mary when she arrived - in the hill country of Judea.
BOTH the Ark and Mary stayed there for 3 months. How is that "out of context"??[/QUOTE]

I'd say 3 months .. so what? Mere coincidence. Out of context, because you are using O.T. scripture to line up with N.T. scripture saying the Ark of the Covenant is Mary just because of the phrase used in each verse "3 months"? All you done is showed that the Ark of the Covenant and Mary shared a time in the hill country of Judea for 3 months in their own timeline. There is nothing significant about spending three months in the hill country of Judea to make Mary as the ark of the covenant from anybody else that spends 3 months in the hill country of Judea.

Let's not forget that 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 Spirit came down as fire from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).

Conversely, 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).

Only a spiritually-blind person who refuses to see cannot see the type and fulfillment here.

And somehow none of the other disciples are considered to be the ark of the covenant? Why wasn't that Mary got up to speak instead of Peter?

Fans of Superman can draw parallels to Jesus Christ and have fun doing it too, but they are not trying to prove that Superman is Jesus Christ.

You should not be drawing a testimony from scripture in the O.T. about the Ark of the Covenant that has nothing to do with being symbolic of Mary.

Why? Because Jesus Christ said scriptures are to testify of Him in seeking His glory for why people are to go to Him for life; no one else.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.... 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

All the scriptural references where the Lord appeared unto men is a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God before His incarnation. He had appeared to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, 17th & 18th chapter; to Isaac in Genesis 26:1-2 & Jacob face to face in Genesis 32:24-30

Proof of this is how Jesus spoke of the day Abraham was glad which I suspect was when He gave news that Sara was to have a child in Genesis 18th chapter as Jesus referred to that day in John 8:56-59 when also referring to His deity as the God men had seen in the O.T.

As to your objections about Mary's title of Queen of Heaven - YOU are guilty of taking things out of context.
God wasn't offended by the TITLE of "Queen of Heaven" in Jer. 7:18. He was offended by the WORSHIP og a GODDESS. This is a direct violation of His Commandment against worshiping FALSE gods, so get your facts straight here.

Finally - regarding Peter and Christ - the Church has ALWAYS taught from the beginning that Peter is the EARTHLY head of the Church - but that Christ IS the Head (Col. 1:18). Peter is merely a vicar - he's not Christ - and the Church has never made this claim.

So much for your like making dishonest accusations . . .

Many of what the catechism says can be taken both ways and are being taken both ways.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Christ's Faithful - Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life

"The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407 "

One more time with a different application by addressing your claim: Neither Paul, nor John, and not even Peter pointed to himself as having authority over the Church. Indeed, Paul had to correct Peter as he was about to continue a Jewish practice of separating himself from the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Infallible Peter? No, I do not think so. How was Peter corrected? By the word of God in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That means Christ, the Word of God, is the Head of the Church on this earth and in the Heaven above.

 

[Truther]

Now, you're learning . . .

Lol.

Mary’s seed is named. Problem is, Jesus’ half sisters are not named.

I guess Mary was jealous and wants no competition as the queen of heaven, huh?

 

[Truther]

The ignorant:
"Duhhhh, "until", uhhhhhh . . . (drool) . . uhhhhh, ALWAYS means the same thing in da Bible, duhhhh . . ."

Not MY Bible, Einstein . . .
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?

Deut. 34:5-6 says: So Moses, the Eternal’s servant, died there in the land of Moab, just as the Eternal had said. 6 He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but UNTIL this day no one knows where his grave is.
Soooo, does that mean that the Jews suddenly discovered his grave??

Oh, I almost forgot: "LOL" . . .

You agreed with the RCC version of Matt 1:25.....he knew her not, ever, ever, and did not even have a sexual thought toward her, but prayed to her incessantly “....



lol

 

[BreadOfLife]

I admit that the two topic is not the same but you overlooked my point of looking to the Bible for that truth.

I was talking about the misapplication of scripture in lieu of how sinners would mock the Bible as not having original content. The truth is in the Bible for why your misapplication of scripture is not found just as the origin of the flood and Mary being a virgin when she had Jesus can be found in the Bible as an event that has happened in real life.

{QUOTE]David's question regarding the arrival of the Ark - in the hill country of Judea is almost VERBATIM as to what Elizabeth said to Mary when she arrived - in the hill country of Judea.
BOTH the Ark and Mary stayed there for 3 months. How is that "out of context"??

I'd say 3 months .. so what? Mere coincidence. Out of context, because you are using O.T. scripture to line up with N.T. scripture saying the Ark of the Covenant is Mary just because of the phrase used in each verse "3 months"? All you done is showed that the Ark of the Covenant and Mary shared a time in the hill country of Judea for 3 months in their own timeline. There is nothing significant about spending three months in the hill country of Judea to make Mary as the ark of the covenant from anybody else that spends 3 months in the hill country of Judea.



And somehow none of the other disciples are considered to be the ark of the covenant? Why wasn't that Mary got up to speak instead of Peter?

Fans of Superman can draw parallels to Jesus Christ and have fun doing it too, but they are not trying to prove that Superman is Jesus Christ.

You should not be drawing a testimony from scripture in the O.T. about the Ark of the Covenant that has nothing to do with being symbolic of Mary.

Why? Because Jesus Christ said scriptures are to testify of Him in seeking His glory for why people are to go to Him for life; no one else.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.... 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

All the scriptural references where the Lord appeared unto men is a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God before His incarnation. He had appeared to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, 17th & 18th chapter; to Isaac in Genesis 26:1-2 & Jacob face to face in Genesis 32:24-30

Proof of this is how Jesus spoke of the day Abraham was glad which I suspect was when He gave news that Sara was to have a child in Genesis 18th chapter as Jesus referred to that day in John 8:56-59 when also referring to His deity as the God men had seen in the O.T.



Many of what the catechism says can be taken both ways and are being taken both ways.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Christ's Faithful - Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life

"The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407 "

One more time with a different application by addressing your claim: Neither Paul, nor John, and not even Peter pointed to himself as having authority over the Church. Indeed, Paul had to correct Peter as he was about to continue a Jewish practice of separating himself from the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Infallible Peter? No, I do not think so. How was Peter corrected? By the word of God in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That means Christ, the Word of God, is the Head of the Church on this earth and in the Heaven above.[/QUOTE]
Let's start with your blunders about Peter and his office.
Infallibility only applies to the Pope when he is teaching officially in matters of faith and morals. It doesn't apply to ALL of his behavior, as in Gal 2:11. Peter was out of line - but he wasn't TEACHING anything. If he made NO mistakes - that would make him impeccable - not infallible.

As the for OT Types and NT Fulfillments that I listed regarding Mary - YOU are being dishonest.
You claim that the ONLY similarity between Mary and the Ark was that they stayed "in the hill country of Judea for 3 months." But that's NOT all I presented . . .

- David leapt and danced with joy before the Ark at its arrival.
- John the Baptist leapt inside his mother's womb for joy at Mary's arrival.
- David said, "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?"
- Elizabeth said, "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

These are FAR more than your desperate claim of "coincidence".

Finally - you have done NOTHING to prove that "the term "Queen of Heaven" is an "offensive" term to God - except the the fact that in the OT, it was used to WORSHIP a false god.
This is NOT the case with Mary.

Try again . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You agreed with the RCC version of Matt 1:25.....he knew her not, ever, ever, and did not even have a sexual thought toward her, but prayed to her incessantly “....
lol

Lol.
Mary’s seed is named. Problem is, Jesus’ half sisters are not named.
I guess Mary was jealous and wants no competition as the queen of heaven, huh?

You know - if you try really hard - you might have enough brain power to light a match - but I'm not holding my breath . . .

Oh, ummm - "LOL . . .

 

[RogerDC]

deleted

 

[RogerDC]

The church which is His body has many members for why the pronoun "they" can be also applied over every single believer.

Sure, but that depends on how you define “believers”. There are millions of “believers” who reject many of the teachings of the Catholic Church and are therefore heretics. They also preach against the Catholic Church, thereby making themselves enemies of Christ's body. How can heretics who attack Christ’s body possibly be part of the Church?
These heretical “believers” are in effect a church unto themselves - there are not millions of fake churches - there is only one, true Church and one body that is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22).

 

[Truther]

You know - if you try really hard - you might have enough brain power to light a match - but I'm not holding my breath . . .

Oh, ummm - "LOL . . .

Question....

Did Joseph pray to Mary like RCC does, or did she become glorified like her son after death?

 

[RogerDC]

The Apostles and Prophets spoke to us the word of God, not the RCC.

The apostles were all Catholic; they were the first leaders of the Catholic Church. All the NT writers were Catholics. So how come you aren’t?

 

[Truther]

The apostles were all Catholic; they were the first leaders of the Catholic Church. All the NT writers were Catholics. So how come you aren’t?

Were they centered in Rome with a Pope or was that invented hundreds of years later?

 

[RogerDC]

All things written in extra Biblical history are the infallible word of God?

Only the RCC would say something like that.

… except I never said that. Regardless, thanks for providing an excellent example of a straw man argument.

 

[Truther]

… except I never said that. Regardless, thanks for providing an excellent example of a straw man argument.

Good, now that you admit that extra Biblical commentary cannot be trusted as infallible, we can only trust our infallible Bible. That is all you need, not silly internet fake history.

 

[RogerDC]

Since He can turn water into literal wine, then why not His literal body & blood? So what is wrong with that picture?

Nothing at all - you’ve summed it up beautifully.

If God was really going to do as you say to the bread and wine having His Presence in them and all, then God would be condoning & practicing idolatry which He is not.

How can it be idolatry if God is present?

If He says do this in "remembrance of Me" and not as the RCC emphasized it as "Do this in receiving atonement for sins", then communion can only be symbolic of what Christ has done for us on the cross.

If the bread and wine are only symbolic, why does Jesus bless them before offering them to the apostles to eat?

If the wine is only symbolic, why does Jesus call it “my blood of the covenant”? He didn’t shed His blood until the next day.

When all you need is to go before that throne of grace to ask for help and even forgiveness for how we are cleansed, then there is no point for communion to become the Mass, now is there?

If there is no point to it, why does Christ’s Church place so much importance on it?

God is angry.

God is angry because fools, heretics and ignoramuses don’t obey and respect His Church.

 

[Enow]

Try again . . .

Only God can minister and cause the increase. It is not on me to convince you of anything. I leave you to God, brother.

 

[RogerDC]

He is there talking about being disqualified from ministry.

In 1Cor 9:27, Paul is referring to being “disqualified” from the “race”, at the end of which is the prize of eternal life (v.24-26). This means he thinks he can fall and not end up saved.

And consider 1Cor 1:18 - Paul refers to "us who are BEING saved" - he doesn’t refer to “us who ARE saved”, like you and your ilk do. Paul considers salvation a process that lasts all our life.

In Hebrews 3:14, Paul says, "For we have become partakers of Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end". The word “if” means salvation is conditional, and IF those conditions are not met, the hope of salvation can be lost.

Jesus is God...and the Man who mediates between Himself and man. The very same scripture says that He is the only mediator between God and man...and He Himself is God...so there is no other mediator between God and man.

Your missed my point: I’m not disputing that “the man, Christ Jesus” is the only mediator between GOD and MAN. I’m claiming there are mediators between “the MAN, Christ Jesus” and MANKIND … so it’s not God-to-man, but man-to-man.

As I said, it is not every Protestant denomination that is Spirit-filled.

There are NO Protestant denominations or individuals who are “Spirit-filled” … that would be impossible - they’re all heretics.

 

[Enow]

Sure, but that depends on how you define “believers”. There are millions of “believers” who reject many of the teachings of the Catholic Church and are therefore heretics. They also preach against the Catholic Church, thereby making themselves enemies of Christ's body. How can heretics who attack Christ’s body possibly be part of the Church?
These heretical “believers” are in effect a church unto themselves - there are not millions of fake churches - there is only one, true Church and one body that is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22).

Has the RCC explained yet why none of the churches in Revelation were prophesied in the future to adhere to the church at Rome and they will be okay? Five of the seven churches needed correction or else, and only 2 were told to hold fast with nary a mention of the perfect church at Rome.

If you want to preach that the RCC is the Good News to man, what will you do when the Bridegroom comes? Tell Jesus to wait until you go to the confessional and have the Mass? If you divide your singular hope in Christ with the RCC, then it ceases to be hope. Don't divide your singular hope in Jesus Christ. When you think of Jesus Christ as the Bridegroom, then you may see why you need to be free of your bondage to the RCC.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber....7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

 

[Truther]

Question....

Did Joseph pray to Mary like RCC does, or did she become glorified like her son after death?

May I ask this question?

 

[Enow]

Nothing at all - you’ve summed it up beautifully.

Not when the bread still tastes like bread and the wine still tastes like wine. So no. Not the same thing when Jesus turned the water into wine.

So everything is supposed to be symbolic after all per lack of evidence of this change in the bread and the wine to take them only in remembrance of Me like He said..

How can it be idolatry if God is present?If the bread and wine are only symbolic, why does Jesus bless them before offering them to the apostles to eat?

The bread and the wine made by men's hands and calling it a god is idolatry.

If the wine is only symbolic, why does Jesus call it “my blood of the covenant”? He didn’t shed His blood until the next day.If there is no point to it, why does Christ’s Church place so much importance on it?God is angry because fools, heretics and ignoramuses don’t obey and respect His Church.

The fact that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is in you since your salvation when you believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God had raised Him from the dead is why you never have to receive Him supernaturally again.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Hebrews 4:1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world..... 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[Enoch111]

There are NO Protestant denominations or individuals who are “Spirit-filled” … that would be impossible - they’re all heretics.

At least we have one honest Catholic here. The Council of Trent ruled all Protestants to be heretics, but the RCC has been trying to hide that fact in order to create a one-world religion.

The truth of the matter though is that the majority of Catholic doctrine is false teaching. The Mass is not the same as the Lord's Supper, and all the teaching about the Mass is unbiblical.

 

[Enow]

At least we have one honest Catholic here. The Council of Trent ruled all Protestants to be heretics, but the RCC has been trying to hide that fact in order to create a one-world religion.

The truth of the matter though is that the majority of Catholic doctrine is false teaching. The Mass is not the same as the Lord's Supper, and all the teaching about the Mass is unbiblical.

Said one world religion will be accomplished during the great tribulation when the unifying factor is that everybody can speak in tongues which said tongues is nothing but gibberish nonsense and not a foreign language at all, as found in idolatries, world's religions, the occults ( Isaiah 8:19 ) and cults in Christianity. That kind of tongues had existed in the world before Pentecost came with the real God's gift of tongues of other men's lips to speak unto the people which the law and the prophets declared as Paul said for what tongues were for in 1 Corinthians 14:20-22

Just sharing a side note there of how impossible a one world church can come about theoretically, unless the unifying factor included something else.