Only if one is an inculcated RC.kepha31 said:
https://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings
Why I Had To Apostatize
- Thread starter Webers_Home
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
https://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/matt-slick-exposed.htm << not Catholic
Refuting "CARM's" claim that the Catholic Church is not Christian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t1i9ntYs6U <<not Catholic
Refuting Matt Slick <<premise unknown
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=785481
MATT SLICK AND CARM FALSE ACCUSATION ANSWERED
Your buddy Matt isn't well received even in some areas of the Protestant community.
Any solid refutations on his forum get deleted, so he is a dishonest manipulating liar and has been repeatedly exposed as such.
Refuting "CARM's" claim that the Catholic Church is not Christian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t1i9ntYs6U <<not Catholic
Refuting Matt Slick <<premise unknown
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=785481
MATT SLICK AND CARM FALSE ACCUSATION ANSWERED
Your buddy Matt isn't well received even in some areas of the Protestant community.
Any solid refutations on his forum get deleted, so he is a dishonest manipulating liar and has been repeatedly exposed as such.
Webers_Home said:
Your "bottom line" is no different than the Nestorian heresy that was addressed at the Council of Ephesus.
Most Catholics readily bleat that they believe Christ is fully God and fully
man; but in reality, they only believe he's fully God.
[/QUOTE]That is a lie. We know where Jesus got his humanity from, do you?
We know who Adam was, and we know who the New Adam is. We also know who Eve was, and we know who the New Eve is.
It is commonly alleged that Mary was somehow espoused to God's spirit so
that she was not only the mother of God, but also God's wife. That particular
belief cannot be found in the Gospel records; nor is it developed in either the
book of Acts nor any of the epistles.
She bore the incarnate God/man in her womb, what more evidence do you need of her true Husband?
It's not Catholics that grant Mary more than one husband. It wasn't a typical 21st century marriage and you remain blind to Jewish customs. You are projecting your own heresies.
"into your home" are not the words to describe ordinary marriage with sexual intercourse, or the angel would have used specific words for that.
Then all the early Christians who wrote about the said "claims", including the reformers, are pagan? Your views have been around for 50 years so why should anybody trust your opinions?
-
Not sure whether the beliefs and practices of Muslims are in total harmony
with Islam's holy book, but the Koran testifies itself is free of error.
The Cow [2.2] . . .This Book, there is no doubt in it
That kind of testimony is circular; viz: Muslims believe the Koran is free of
doubt because the Koran says it is.
Bottom line: Muslims take Islam's word for it just as Catholics take
Catholicism's word for it that Catholicism has no doctrinal errors.
So it's really a matter of one's perspective. Were I a Muslim, of course I
would believe the Koran contains no doubt. And were I a Catholic, of course
I would believe that Catholicism contains no doctrinal errors.
Christ's differences with Israel's religious experts wasn't black and white like
the differences between Islam and Catholicism. Christ's beliefs and practices
were derived from the very same holy book that his opponents held as the
foundation of their own beliefs and practices. The friction that existed
between Christ and Israel's religious experts was mostly interpretational.
They interpreted the Old Testament one way, and Christ interpreted it in
another.
That pretty much describes the friction between Catholics, Jehovah's
Witnesses, Baptists, and Mormons; et al. They all incorporate the Bible in
their religions, but they all have their own ways of interpreting it that may,
or may not, agree with the other guys.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Not sure whether the beliefs and practices of Muslims are in total harmony
with Islam's holy book, but the Koran testifies itself is free of error.
The Cow [2.2] . . .This Book, there is no doubt in it
That kind of testimony is circular; viz: Muslims believe the Koran is free of
doubt because the Koran says it is.
Bottom line: Muslims take Islam's word for it just as Catholics take
Catholicism's word for it that Catholicism has no doctrinal errors.
So it's really a matter of one's perspective. Were I a Muslim, of course I
would believe the Koran contains no doubt. And were I a Catholic, of course
I would believe that Catholicism contains no doctrinal errors.
Christ's differences with Israel's religious experts wasn't black and white like
the differences between Islam and Catholicism. Christ's beliefs and practices
were derived from the very same holy book that his opponents held as the
foundation of their own beliefs and practices. The friction that existed
between Christ and Israel's religious experts was mostly interpretational.
They interpreted the Old Testament one way, and Christ interpreted it in
another.
That pretty much describes the friction between Catholics, Jehovah's
Witnesses, Baptists, and Mormons; et al. They all incorporate the Bible in
their religions, but they all have their own ways of interpreting it that may,
or may not, agree with the other guys.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
CLAIM: The very fact that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit,
makes her the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
RESPONSE: Yes, Christ's mom conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
(Luke 1:35) but she didn't conceive with the Holy Spirit. That's a distinctive
difference.
The one is a miracle; while the other is a sin because it alleges that Jesus'
mom and the Holy Spirit became married by means of sex; which is
outrageous to say the least. In point of fact, by using sex in lieu of a proper
marriage, the Holy Spirit would've turned Jesus' mom into a harlot.
In addition: if the Holy Ghost consummated a marriage with Mary, then The
Father did too, and so did The Son: the entire Trinity would have slept with
Joseph's wife; including her own son since he's a member of the Trinity too.
CLAIM: You are wrong in saying Mary was wed to all three persons of the
Trinity. Mary's relationship with the three persons of the Godhead differ from
each other. Mary's chief title is Mother Of God. But, when we say she is
God's Mother, we are referring to her relationship with the second person of
the Trinity; not to the first nor the third.
RESPONSE: Since it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired Jesus, and since
it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly married Christ's mother, then why is
Jesus never called the son of the Holy Ghost? Did you ever stop to think of
that?
You see, Christ's conception by the Holy Spirit automatically made him the
Father's son because the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same
God; viz: it is impossible to fragment the Trinity and break it down into
three separate divinities. It is only one divinity.
NOTE: When Jesus referred to a person he called "My Father" was he
referring to the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired him; or to some other
personage? Who is this person whom Jesus called My Father? Isn't it the first
person of the Trinity? Yes, it is. So then, the first person of the Trinity, and
the third person of the Trinity, are one and the same person because both
are given credit for siring Jesus.
The fact that Christ is God, and that Mary gave birth to him, is the very
reason why Catholics believe her to be God's mother. Isn't that right? Yes,
that's right. So then, applying the logic of their own reasoning: God is the
son of the Holy Spirit, the son of the Son, and the son of the Father too.
Ergo: the triune God is His own father.
So then, according to Rome's own proprietary beliefs: Christ's mom is not
only a bigamist, an adulteress, and a harlot; but also an incestuous mother
by bearing a child sired by her own son.
Rome has been making Jesus to be God for years, so Catholics shouldn't be
antagonized by the logical conclusions of their own dogma.
Rome's sick yarn about Mary and God's so-called mystical marriage has
burdened a pretty fair amount of shame and mockery upon Christianity, and
I will relish with delight Rome's utter and thorough humiliation at the throne
of God when its proprietary yarns, fantasies, and myths are debunked and
ignobly discarded in the lake of fire right along with the imaginative buffoons
that invented them.
†. 2Cor 11:13-15 . . For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers,
disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his
servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end
shall be according to their deeds.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CLAIM: The very fact that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit,
makes her the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
RESPONSE: Yes, Christ's mom conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
(Luke 1:35) but she didn't conceive with the Holy Spirit. That's a distinctive
difference.
The one is a miracle; while the other is a sin because it alleges that Jesus'
mom and the Holy Spirit became married by means of sex; which is
outrageous to say the least. In point of fact, by using sex in lieu of a proper
marriage, the Holy Spirit would've turned Jesus' mom into a harlot.
In addition: if the Holy Ghost consummated a marriage with Mary, then The
Father did too, and so did The Son: the entire Trinity would have slept with
Joseph's wife; including her own son since he's a member of the Trinity too.
CLAIM: You are wrong in saying Mary was wed to all three persons of the
Trinity. Mary's relationship with the three persons of the Godhead differ from
each other. Mary's chief title is Mother Of God. But, when we say she is
God's Mother, we are referring to her relationship with the second person of
the Trinity; not to the first nor the third.
RESPONSE: Since it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired Jesus, and since
it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly married Christ's mother, then why is
Jesus never called the son of the Holy Ghost? Did you ever stop to think of
that?
You see, Christ's conception by the Holy Spirit automatically made him the
Father's son because the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same
God; viz: it is impossible to fragment the Trinity and break it down into
three separate divinities. It is only one divinity.
NOTE: When Jesus referred to a person he called "My Father" was he
referring to the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired him; or to some other
personage? Who is this person whom Jesus called My Father? Isn't it the first
person of the Trinity? Yes, it is. So then, the first person of the Trinity, and
the third person of the Trinity, are one and the same person because both
are given credit for siring Jesus.
The fact that Christ is God, and that Mary gave birth to him, is the very
reason why Catholics believe her to be God's mother. Isn't that right? Yes,
that's right. So then, applying the logic of their own reasoning: God is the
son of the Holy Spirit, the son of the Son, and the son of the Father too.
Ergo: the triune God is His own father.
So then, according to Rome's own proprietary beliefs: Christ's mom is not
only a bigamist, an adulteress, and a harlot; but also an incestuous mother
by bearing a child sired by her own son.
Rome has been making Jesus to be God for years, so Catholics shouldn't be
antagonized by the logical conclusions of their own dogma.
Rome's sick yarn about Mary and God's so-called mystical marriage has
burdened a pretty fair amount of shame and mockery upon Christianity, and
I will relish with delight Rome's utter and thorough humiliation at the throne
of God when its proprietary yarns, fantasies, and myths are debunked and
ignobly discarded in the lake of fire right along with the imaginative buffoons
that invented them.
†. 2Cor 11:13-15 . . For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers,
disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his
servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end
shall be according to their deeds.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
Although I don't recommend Rome's interpretations of the New Testament; I
highly recommend its current English translation; the New American Bible.
You do understand what I mean by an interpretation as opposed to a
translation?
Translations move the words and expressions of one language into another
language. But interpretations are a whole different animal. They are
attempts to explain what the Bible means-- sometimes regardless of what
the text actually says in writing.
Members of cult religions-- e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons --readily
attest that they believe the Bible; when in reality they don't believe the Bible
itself, but rather, they believe what their clergy says the Bible means. This
can also be said of rank and file Catholics. They too readily attest that they
believe the Bible; when in reality they don't believe the Bible itself, but
rather, they believe what their clergy says the Bible means.
During an encounter with a Baptist man back in 1968, I was amazed to learn
from him that all Christian Bibles say pretty much the very same things.
True, the sayings aren't verbatim duplicates in all Bibles; but that's to be
expected when the English language has at its own disposal such a vast
storehouse of so many synonyms to work with; and when the Greek,
Hebrew, and Aramaic languages are themselves sometimes extremely
ambiguous. There are ancient Hebrew words that, to this day, nobody really
knows what they mean, so translators just take their best shot. However; as
long as the original information isn't lost in the process, the words selected by
translators can be flexible. Here's an example:
In the Douay Rheims version, Romans 5:18 reads like this:
"By the offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all
men, so from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all
men."
In Rome's current official version, the New American Bible (NAB), that same
verse reads like this:
"In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon
all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all."
You see how the NAB substituted the word acquittal for the D-R's
justification? Although justification and acquittal are both accurate enough
translations of the Greek word dikaioma, acquittal is the better choice seeing
as how Webster's defines it as a setting free from the charge of an offense
by verdict, sentence, or other legal process; i.e. to render, or pronounce,
innocent. Viz: Christ's crucifixion was an act of criminal justice that looses
sinners from any, and all, criminal charges God holds against them.
Therefore, through Christ's crucifixion, I'm now an acquitted man. In
response to my God-granted acquittal; I fully agree with the angel's
announcement at Luke 2:10, that Christ's arrival was certainly good news of
great joy!
If you knew for certain that God has permanently loosed you from any, and
all, charges held against you-- and/or ever will accumulate against you --
wouldn't you be happy about it? I think you would, because the benefits of
such an acquittal are immediately apparent: You, my friend, would never
again be in danger of eternal suffering.
†. John 5:24 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and
believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to
condemnation, but has passed from death to life.
An interesting aspect of this particular acquittal is that, according to Rom
5:6-20, it's effects are similar to how Adam's one sin made all men sinners.
In like manner, Christ's one crucifixion has the potential to make all men
innocent.
This is a one-time kind of acquittal just as Adam's sin was a one-time kind of
condemnation. So that it isn't necessary to keep seeking acquittal after
acquittal for your sins. No, you get this special acquittal only just the one
time and you don't need to get it again any more than you can expect to get
Adam's condemnation again and again. Adam's act, and its consequences, is
the model that clarifies Christ's act and its consequences.
Romans 5:6-20 has probably been responsible for producing more ex
Catholics than any other passage in the Bible. Just about every ex I've
spoken with, including a priest who actually conducted masses in the Vatican
itself, came to a realization via Romans 5:6-20.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Although I don't recommend Rome's interpretations of the New Testament; I
highly recommend its current English translation; the New American Bible.
You do understand what I mean by an interpretation as opposed to a
translation?
Translations move the words and expressions of one language into another
language. But interpretations are a whole different animal. They are
attempts to explain what the Bible means-- sometimes regardless of what
the text actually says in writing.
Members of cult religions-- e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons --readily
attest that they believe the Bible; when in reality they don't believe the Bible
itself, but rather, they believe what their clergy says the Bible means. This
can also be said of rank and file Catholics. They too readily attest that they
believe the Bible; when in reality they don't believe the Bible itself, but
rather, they believe what their clergy says the Bible means.
During an encounter with a Baptist man back in 1968, I was amazed to learn
from him that all Christian Bibles say pretty much the very same things.
True, the sayings aren't verbatim duplicates in all Bibles; but that's to be
expected when the English language has at its own disposal such a vast
storehouse of so many synonyms to work with; and when the Greek,
Hebrew, and Aramaic languages are themselves sometimes extremely
ambiguous. There are ancient Hebrew words that, to this day, nobody really
knows what they mean, so translators just take their best shot. However; as
long as the original information isn't lost in the process, the words selected by
translators can be flexible. Here's an example:
In the Douay Rheims version, Romans 5:18 reads like this:
"By the offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all
men, so from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all
men."
In Rome's current official version, the New American Bible (NAB), that same
verse reads like this:
"In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon
all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all."
You see how the NAB substituted the word acquittal for the D-R's
justification? Although justification and acquittal are both accurate enough
translations of the Greek word dikaioma, acquittal is the better choice seeing
as how Webster's defines it as a setting free from the charge of an offense
by verdict, sentence, or other legal process; i.e. to render, or pronounce,
innocent. Viz: Christ's crucifixion was an act of criminal justice that looses
sinners from any, and all, criminal charges God holds against them.
Therefore, through Christ's crucifixion, I'm now an acquitted man. In
response to my God-granted acquittal; I fully agree with the angel's
announcement at Luke 2:10, that Christ's arrival was certainly good news of
great joy!
If you knew for certain that God has permanently loosed you from any, and
all, charges held against you-- and/or ever will accumulate against you --
wouldn't you be happy about it? I think you would, because the benefits of
such an acquittal are immediately apparent: You, my friend, would never
again be in danger of eternal suffering.
†. John 5:24 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and
believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to
condemnation, but has passed from death to life.
An interesting aspect of this particular acquittal is that, according to Rom
5:6-20, it's effects are similar to how Adam's one sin made all men sinners.
In like manner, Christ's one crucifixion has the potential to make all men
innocent.
This is a one-time kind of acquittal just as Adam's sin was a one-time kind of
condemnation. So that it isn't necessary to keep seeking acquittal after
acquittal for your sins. No, you get this special acquittal only just the one
time and you don't need to get it again any more than you can expect to get
Adam's condemnation again and again. Adam's act, and its consequences, is
the model that clarifies Christ's act and its consequences.
Romans 5:6-20 has probably been responsible for producing more ex
Catholics than any other passage in the Bible. Just about every ex I've
spoken with, including a priest who actually conducted masses in the Vatican
itself, came to a realization via Romans 5:6-20.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
Neither the word purgatory, nor a specific teaching about a purgatory, is
actually in the Holy Bible; so Rome points to certain passages that, although
they don't actually prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of a
purgatory, they allude to (suggest the possibility of) a purgatory. For
example:
In 2Mcc 12:38-46 a Jewish military commander named Judas Maccabeus
made an attempt to atone for his dead soldiers' pagan amulets which he
believed is a crime against God for Jews to wear. So Judas passed the hat
among his surviving men and collected about 2,000 silver drachmas which
were sent to Jerusalem intended for a sacrifice to expiate his dead men's sin
so that it wouldn't jeopardize their resurrection.
Although Judas meant well; what he did was itself a violation of the very
Law that he sought to appease. There are no sacrifices stipulated in the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy for expiating the sins that people take with
them over to the afterlife.
The very Law he sought to appease makes it a crime to either amend,
embellish, add to, revise, edit, upgrade, update, or subtract from the
covenant.
†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.
†. Deut 5:32-33 . . Be careful, therefore, to do as the LORD, your God, has
commanded you, not turning aside to the right or to the left, but following
exactly the way prescribed for you by the LORD, your God,
†. Deut 26:16 . . This day the LORD, your God, commands you to observe
these statutes and decrees. Be careful, then, to observe them with all your
heart and with all your soul.
Therefore, had the priests at Jerusalem accepted Judas Maccabeus' 2,000
silver drachmas for the purpose he intended, they would have been cursed.
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this
law!
The phrase "cursed be" is grammatically present tense; so that when Yhvh's
people beak any one of the laws stipulated in the covenant, they incur an
instant curse upon themselves-- no delay, and no waiting period.
Bottom line: What Judas Maccabeus did was just as pagan as the amulets
that his men were wearing when they died.
Q: How can you doubt the truth of 2Mcc 12:38-46? It’s in the Holy Bible!
A: Just because somebody's personal beliefs are recorded in the Bible does
not make their personal beliefs eo ipso truth. Judas believed it was possible
for living Jews to offer sacrifices for the sins of dead Jews. Is it? No;
absolutely not! Were it possible, then a procedure for that purpose would be
stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Atonements for the dead fall into the category of sins of presumption; viz:
unauthorized behavior.
If 2Mcc 12:38-46 teaches anything at all it’s that the Israel of Judas
Maccabeus’ day was spiritually decadent-- just as decadent as it was in the
days of the Judges when every man did that which was right in his own eyes
rather than Yhvh's eyes; and they were still at it even in Christ's day and
age.
†. Mark 7:6-9 . . And Jesus said to them: Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their
heart is far away from me. In futility do they worship me, teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you
hold to the tradition of men.
†. Mark 7:13 . . You invalidate the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Neither the word purgatory, nor a specific teaching about a purgatory, is
actually in the Holy Bible; so Rome points to certain passages that, although
they don't actually prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of a
purgatory, they allude to (suggest the possibility of) a purgatory. For
example:
In 2Mcc 12:38-46 a Jewish military commander named Judas Maccabeus
made an attempt to atone for his dead soldiers' pagan amulets which he
believed is a crime against God for Jews to wear. So Judas passed the hat
among his surviving men and collected about 2,000 silver drachmas which
were sent to Jerusalem intended for a sacrifice to expiate his dead men's sin
so that it wouldn't jeopardize their resurrection.
Although Judas meant well; what he did was itself a violation of the very
Law that he sought to appease. There are no sacrifices stipulated in the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy for expiating the sins that people take with
them over to the afterlife.
The very Law he sought to appease makes it a crime to either amend,
embellish, add to, revise, edit, upgrade, update, or subtract from the
covenant.
†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.
†. Deut 5:32-33 . . Be careful, therefore, to do as the LORD, your God, has
commanded you, not turning aside to the right or to the left, but following
exactly the way prescribed for you by the LORD, your God,
†. Deut 26:16 . . This day the LORD, your God, commands you to observe
these statutes and decrees. Be careful, then, to observe them with all your
heart and with all your soul.
Therefore, had the priests at Jerusalem accepted Judas Maccabeus' 2,000
silver drachmas for the purpose he intended, they would have been cursed.
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this
law!
The phrase "cursed be" is grammatically present tense; so that when Yhvh's
people beak any one of the laws stipulated in the covenant, they incur an
instant curse upon themselves-- no delay, and no waiting period.
Bottom line: What Judas Maccabeus did was just as pagan as the amulets
that his men were wearing when they died.
Q: How can you doubt the truth of 2Mcc 12:38-46? It’s in the Holy Bible!
A: Just because somebody's personal beliefs are recorded in the Bible does
not make their personal beliefs eo ipso truth. Judas believed it was possible
for living Jews to offer sacrifices for the sins of dead Jews. Is it? No;
absolutely not! Were it possible, then a procedure for that purpose would be
stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Atonements for the dead fall into the category of sins of presumption; viz:
unauthorized behavior.
If 2Mcc 12:38-46 teaches anything at all it’s that the Israel of Judas
Maccabeus’ day was spiritually decadent-- just as decadent as it was in the
days of the Judges when every man did that which was right in his own eyes
rather than Yhvh's eyes; and they were still at it even in Christ's day and
age.
†. Mark 7:6-9 . . And Jesus said to them: Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their
heart is far away from me. In futility do they worship me, teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you
hold to the tradition of men.
†. Mark 7:13 . . You invalidate the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
Ave Maria & Lovely Lady Dressed In Blue
I have a prayer of my own in response to those.
The Ave Christos
Hail Messiah Jesus ben David!
Almighty God has always been with you.
Blessed are you above every living creature (including your mother).
Blessed are all they who put their trust in you (rather than in your mother).
Blessed are they who look forward to your return.
Holy Messiah Jesus, my sacred sibling; welcome me home at the hour of my
death.
I look forward to meeting you in person;
as I look forward to your enemies crushed to death
in the winepress of the wrath of God.
Amen.
One of the lines in Lovely Lady Dressed In Blue is a line that says; "Lovely
Lady dressed in blue- Teach me how to pray!" That is so insulting. Jesus is
supposed to be the believer's prayer coach; not his mom.
†. Luke 11:1-2 . .Once when Jesus had been out praying, one of his disciples
came to him as he finished and said, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples." He said, "This is how you should pray: Father [not
Mother], may your name [not Mary's name] be honored."
Believers are mandated to pray "in The Spirit"
†. Eph 6:18 . .And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers
and requests.
†. Jude 1:20 . .But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy
faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.
I can easily guarantee that when believers comply with that mandate, and
pray in The Sprit, they will not pray to a mother, no, they will pray to a
father.
†. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear;
but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Abba! Father.
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
It is easily seen from those passages that when Catholics pray to Christ's
mom, rather than praying to his Father, they are doing so out of failure to
pray in The Spirit, and also because they lack The Spirit's assurance that
they are God's children rather than Mary's.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ave Maria & Lovely Lady Dressed In Blue
I have a prayer of my own in response to those.
The Ave Christos
Hail Messiah Jesus ben David!
Almighty God has always been with you.
Blessed are you above every living creature (including your mother).
Blessed are all they who put their trust in you (rather than in your mother).
Blessed are they who look forward to your return.
Holy Messiah Jesus, my sacred sibling; welcome me home at the hour of my
death.
I look forward to meeting you in person;
as I look forward to your enemies crushed to death
in the winepress of the wrath of God.
Amen.
One of the lines in Lovely Lady Dressed In Blue is a line that says; "Lovely
Lady dressed in blue- Teach me how to pray!" That is so insulting. Jesus is
supposed to be the believer's prayer coach; not his mom.
†. Luke 11:1-2 . .Once when Jesus had been out praying, one of his disciples
came to him as he finished and said, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples." He said, "This is how you should pray: Father [not
Mother], may your name [not Mary's name] be honored."
Believers are mandated to pray "in The Spirit"
†. Eph 6:18 . .And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers
and requests.
†. Jude 1:20 . .But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy
faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.
I can easily guarantee that when believers comply with that mandate, and
pray in The Sprit, they will not pray to a mother, no, they will pray to a
father.
†. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear;
but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Abba! Father.
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
It is easily seen from those passages that when Catholics pray to Christ's
mom, rather than praying to his Father, they are doing so out of failure to
pray in The Spirit, and also because they lack The Spirit's assurance that
they are God's children rather than Mary's.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
At the epicenter of New Testament Christianity is a man named Jesus Christ.
But at the epicenter of Catholicism is the woman who gave birth to him. It's
just a shame that the Christ of New Testament Christianity has to compete
with his own mother for the loyalties and affections of people passing
themselves off as his faithful followers.
†. John 12:32 . . And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men
unto [not my mother] me.
†. Matt 17:5 . .While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped
them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with
him I am well pleased. You listen [not to his mother] to him!"
†. Matt 28:18 . .Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
and on earth has been given [not to my mother] to me."
†. John 14:6 . . "I (not my mother) am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me.
†. Dan 7:13-14 . . In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was
one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory
and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language
worshiped [not his mother] him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
†. Phlp 2:8-11 . . And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore
God also hath highly exalted [not his mother] him, and given [not his
mother] him a name which is above every name (every name includes his
mother's name): that at the name of Jesus every knee (every knee includes
his mother's knees) should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; And that every tongue (every tongue includes
his mother's tongue) should confess that Jesus Christ [not his mother] is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
†. Col 1:18-19 . . And he [not his mother] is the head of the body, the
church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things
he [not his mother] might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father
that in him [not his mother] should all fullness dwell
†. 1Tim 2:5 . . For there is one God. There is also one mediator between
God and the human race, Christ Jesus (not his mother), himself (not herself)
human,
†. Heb 9:15 . . he (not his mother) is mediator of a new covenant:
†. Heb 12:24 . . Jesus, (not his mother) the mediator of a new covenant,
Rome's disgraceful infatuation with Joseph's wife is nothing less than heathen
paganism; plain and simple.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
At the epicenter of New Testament Christianity is a man named Jesus Christ.
But at the epicenter of Catholicism is the woman who gave birth to him. It's
just a shame that the Christ of New Testament Christianity has to compete
with his own mother for the loyalties and affections of people passing
themselves off as his faithful followers.
†. John 12:32 . . And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men
unto [not my mother] me.
†. Matt 17:5 . .While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped
them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with
him I am well pleased. You listen [not to his mother] to him!"
†. Matt 28:18 . .Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
and on earth has been given [not to my mother] to me."
†. John 14:6 . . "I (not my mother) am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me.
†. Dan 7:13-14 . . In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was
one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory
and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language
worshiped [not his mother] him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
†. Phlp 2:8-11 . . And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore
God also hath highly exalted [not his mother] him, and given [not his
mother] him a name which is above every name (every name includes his
mother's name): that at the name of Jesus every knee (every knee includes
his mother's knees) should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; And that every tongue (every tongue includes
his mother's tongue) should confess that Jesus Christ [not his mother] is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
†. Col 1:18-19 . . And he [not his mother] is the head of the body, the
church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things
he [not his mother] might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father
that in him [not his mother] should all fullness dwell
†. 1Tim 2:5 . . For there is one God. There is also one mediator between
God and the human race, Christ Jesus (not his mother), himself (not herself)
human,
†. Heb 9:15 . . he (not his mother) is mediator of a new covenant:
†. Heb 12:24 . . Jesus, (not his mother) the mediator of a new covenant,
Rome's disgraceful infatuation with Joseph's wife is nothing less than heathen
paganism; plain and simple.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
CLAIM: Christ's mom was sinless since the Holy Bible says she was "full" of
grace (Luke 1:26-30).
RESPONSE: The Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are both in error
because the New Testament's Greek of Luke 1:26-30 doesn't contain the
words "full of grace." The current official Catholic Bible renders Luke's report
like this:
†. Luke 1:26-30 . .In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named
Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming
to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was
greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this
might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have
found favor with God."
Rome duped its followers for years with its erroneous version of Luke 1:26
30, and even incorporated the error into a rote prayer well known to
penance and rosary chanters as the Hail Mary, a.k.a. Ave Maria.
I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was full of grace. I have however seen
one that says Christ was (e.g. John 1:14).
I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was sinless. I have, however, seen Bible
texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity, state that God's son
was sinless (e.g. 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 1:18-19, 1Pet 2:22, and 1John
3:5).
Bouncing off of it's own Church-made construction of Luke 1:26-30--
enhanced by a similar Church-made construction of Luke 1:42 --Rome
announced that the soul of Christ's mom was miraculously created in an
immaculate, sinless state of being, and legislated the Immaculate
Conception an official dogma Dec 8, 1854. That's about 1,700 years after
the apostles, which is very recent-- a mere 160 years ago, about the time
when gold was discovered in California and America's continental railroad
was completed.
The Dec 8, 1854 dogma has absolutely no basis in fact. In reality, there are
no Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that
Mary's conception was a miracle. On the other hand, in reality, there are
Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that the
conception of God's son was a miracle (e.g. Matt 1:18-24, Luke 1:26-35)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CLAIM: Christ's mom was sinless since the Holy Bible says she was "full" of
grace (Luke 1:26-30).
RESPONSE: The Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are both in error
because the New Testament's Greek of Luke 1:26-30 doesn't contain the
words "full of grace." The current official Catholic Bible renders Luke's report
like this:
†. Luke 1:26-30 . .In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named
Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming
to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was
greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this
might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have
found favor with God."
Rome duped its followers for years with its erroneous version of Luke 1:26
30, and even incorporated the error into a rote prayer well known to
penance and rosary chanters as the Hail Mary, a.k.a. Ave Maria.
I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was full of grace. I have however seen
one that says Christ was (e.g. John 1:14).
I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was sinless. I have, however, seen Bible
texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity, state that God's son
was sinless (e.g. 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 1:18-19, 1Pet 2:22, and 1John
3:5).
Bouncing off of it's own Church-made construction of Luke 1:26-30--
enhanced by a similar Church-made construction of Luke 1:42 --Rome
announced that the soul of Christ's mom was miraculously created in an
immaculate, sinless state of being, and legislated the Immaculate
Conception an official dogma Dec 8, 1854. That's about 1,700 years after
the apostles, which is very recent-- a mere 160 years ago, about the time
when gold was discovered in California and America's continental railroad
was completed.
The Dec 8, 1854 dogma has absolutely no basis in fact. In reality, there are
no Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that
Mary's conception was a miracle. On the other hand, in reality, there are
Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that the
conception of God's son was a miracle (e.g. Matt 1:18-24, Luke 1:26-35)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
CLAIM: The immaculate conception was believed in The Church much earlier
than its becoming an official dogma; e.g. Franciscan John Duns Scotus (c.
1264-1308), introduced the idea of pre-redemption in order to reconcile
Mary's freedom from original sin in her conception before the coming of
Christ.
RESPONSE: That's precisely the point. The so-called Immaculate Conception
is an "introduced" idea; viz: a fantasy conceived in the minds of presumptuous
clergy; rather than a clear-cut Biblical revelation. But still, even John Duns
Scotus' idea came along more than a thousand years after the fact; which
would make his idea retroactive rather than proactive. You can't just
arbitrarily legislate retroactive revelation in order to lend credibility to
somebody's ideas. That's tantamount to creating your own revelation rather
than accepting God's.
And anyway; it should go without saying that a concept's antiquity is not an
eo ipso guarantee of its reliability. Untruths were being propagated by
professing Christians even while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-9,
Jud 1:3-4, 2Pet 3:15-16, 1John 2:18-19). If Rome's clergy considers itself
the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, then it has a serious responsibility to
be honest, and a responsibility to keep the truth pure and uncontaminated
from the injection of man-made fantasies somebody contrived in an effort to
reconcile things they don't understand.
Paul admonished his fellow believers at Thessalonica to "hold to the
traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter
from us" (2Thss 2:15). A tradition legislated into dogma 1,700 years after
the apostles certainly does not qualify as a tradition "from us".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CLAIM: The immaculate conception was believed in The Church much earlier
than its becoming an official dogma; e.g. Franciscan John Duns Scotus (c.
1264-1308), introduced the idea of pre-redemption in order to reconcile
Mary's freedom from original sin in her conception before the coming of
Christ.
RESPONSE: That's precisely the point. The so-called Immaculate Conception
is an "introduced" idea; viz: a fantasy conceived in the minds of presumptuous
clergy; rather than a clear-cut Biblical revelation. But still, even John Duns
Scotus' idea came along more than a thousand years after the fact; which
would make his idea retroactive rather than proactive. You can't just
arbitrarily legislate retroactive revelation in order to lend credibility to
somebody's ideas. That's tantamount to creating your own revelation rather
than accepting God's.
And anyway; it should go without saying that a concept's antiquity is not an
eo ipso guarantee of its reliability. Untruths were being propagated by
professing Christians even while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-9,
Jud 1:3-4, 2Pet 3:15-16, 1John 2:18-19). If Rome's clergy considers itself
the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, then it has a serious responsibility to
be honest, and a responsibility to keep the truth pure and uncontaminated
from the injection of man-made fantasies somebody contrived in an effort to
reconcile things they don't understand.
Paul admonished his fellow believers at Thessalonica to "hold to the
traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter
from us" (2Thss 2:15). A tradition legislated into dogma 1,700 years after
the apostles certainly does not qualify as a tradition "from us".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It was Mary's closeness to Christ that made her receive God's "fullness of grace" to be sinless. Without God's grace, it would have been impossible for Mary to be sinless, and she too would be like the rest of humanity. However, because of her decision to say, "yes" in giving birth to Christ, she was given a special privilege by having no sin touch her. Catholics believe that God wanted a perfectly pure woman to carry His Son, the God of the universe, for nothing else short of perfection would do.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary continues to be a major disagreement point by other Christian denominations towards the Catholic faith. Many people say that the Immaculate Conception somehow takes away from Christ's glory and message. Some will say that this belief in Mary is not found in the Bible, or that it blatantly contradicts the Bible's words. There are also thousands of people who mistakenly believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Immaculate Conception, which unfortunately has lead to many misguided opinions. What evidence do Catholics have to defend their belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception?
Evidence from the Scriptures:
It is the term "full of grace" that is emphasized by the Church when dealing with Mary's Immaculate Conception. The title "full of grace" comes from the Greek wordkecharitomene, which describes a "perfection" and "abundance" of grace. In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement. How can Mary be completely and perfectly with God's grace, yet still have sin left in her? Christians eventually came to recognize that it was extremely possible for Mary to be without sin, especially if she was completely filled with God's grace. Luke 1:28 happens to be the only place in the Bible where anyone is addressed with the important title of "full of grace.""And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." - Luke 1:28
Luke 1:35 shows Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. According to the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the pure and holy vessel that held the Ten Commandments (the Old Covenant). The Ark was so holy in fact, that if anyone where to touch it they could actually fall down and die! It was housed in the Holy of Holies, which was a perfectly clean place where the Jewish high priests could enter only once a year according to their law (See Lev. 16:2-4). So how are Mary and the Ark related? The same language that describes God's "dwelling" place for the Old Ark is used again for Mary's overshadowing by the Holy Spirit. Put another way, the Old Ark held God's Ten Commandments and could not be touched by human hands because of its holiness. Mary, the New Ark, holds the New Covenant in her womb, which is Jesus Christ. How much holier is Christ than the Ten Commandments? It only makes sense that for Mary to hold God in her womb, she too would be completely pure and without any sin."the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." - Luke 1:35
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed (offspring) and hers; He (she) will crush your head while you strike at his (her) heel." - Genesis 3:15
What does the book of Genesis have to do with Mary's Immaculate Conception? Genesis 3:15 is the first passage in the Bible that refers to Jesus defeating Satan on the cross. It is also the first verse that shows us how Mary would become the New Eve. The seed of the woman, who would crush the serpent's head, is Jesus. The woman at enmity, or hostility with the serpent, is Mary. It was God who put this hostility between Mary and Satan (the serpent), and it is believed to be in the same likeness as Christ's hostility for the seed of the serpent. What exactly does all this mean? For Mary to be like Christ in His hostility for Satan forever, it is very possible to say that this passage implies Mary's lack of sin. What better way is there to be in total hostility with Satan than to be in God's constant grace? As the New Eve, Mary undid the "no" of the Old Testament Eve by saying, "yes" to carry Jesus.
Evidence from History:
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the year 1854. He did so with the understanding that this belief would help the Catholic faithful grow spiritually towards Christ. The belief that Mary was without sin was not "invented" as numerous people mistakenly think. Many are still under the false impression that the Immaculate Conception was not believed until the year 1854 when it was defined. What they fail to realize is that the belief itself has extremely strong roots in Church writings going well back into the 4th century.
"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God." - St. Augustine, 390 AD. ..
"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain." - St. Ambrose of Milan, 340-370 AD.
"You, and your Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in you, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in your Mother." - St. Ephraem, 350 AD.
In fact, there are literally dozens of cases where early Church fathers have mentioned Mary as being without sin, using such words as "All-Holy One," "All-Sinless One," and "Immaculate." It proves that the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not uncommon in the first few centuries of the Church. As time passed, the Eastern Church began to show its strong love for the Immaculate Conception with its own feast day beginning in the 8th to 9th century. By the 12th century, the Western Church was celebrating the feast of the Immaculate Conception all over Europe, and by the end of the 15th century, it was universally recognized and defended as true Christian doctrine.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-catholics-believe-in-the-immaculate-conception.html
The Immaculate Conception of Mary continues to be a major disagreement point by other Christian denominations towards the Catholic faith. Many people say that the Immaculate Conception somehow takes away from Christ's glory and message. Some will say that this belief in Mary is not found in the Bible, or that it blatantly contradicts the Bible's words. There are also thousands of people who mistakenly believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Immaculate Conception, which unfortunately has lead to many misguided opinions. What evidence do Catholics have to defend their belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception?
Evidence from the Scriptures:
It is the term "full of grace" that is emphasized by the Church when dealing with Mary's Immaculate Conception. The title "full of grace" comes from the Greek wordkecharitomene, which describes a "perfection" and "abundance" of grace. In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement. How can Mary be completely and perfectly with God's grace, yet still have sin left in her? Christians eventually came to recognize that it was extremely possible for Mary to be without sin, especially if she was completely filled with God's grace. Luke 1:28 happens to be the only place in the Bible where anyone is addressed with the important title of "full of grace.""And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." - Luke 1:28
Luke 1:35 shows Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. According to the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the pure and holy vessel that held the Ten Commandments (the Old Covenant). The Ark was so holy in fact, that if anyone where to touch it they could actually fall down and die! It was housed in the Holy of Holies, which was a perfectly clean place where the Jewish high priests could enter only once a year according to their law (See Lev. 16:2-4). So how are Mary and the Ark related? The same language that describes God's "dwelling" place for the Old Ark is used again for Mary's overshadowing by the Holy Spirit. Put another way, the Old Ark held God's Ten Commandments and could not be touched by human hands because of its holiness. Mary, the New Ark, holds the New Covenant in her womb, which is Jesus Christ. How much holier is Christ than the Ten Commandments? It only makes sense that for Mary to hold God in her womb, she too would be completely pure and without any sin."the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." - Luke 1:35
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed (offspring) and hers; He (she) will crush your head while you strike at his (her) heel." - Genesis 3:15
What does the book of Genesis have to do with Mary's Immaculate Conception? Genesis 3:15 is the first passage in the Bible that refers to Jesus defeating Satan on the cross. It is also the first verse that shows us how Mary would become the New Eve. The seed of the woman, who would crush the serpent's head, is Jesus. The woman at enmity, or hostility with the serpent, is Mary. It was God who put this hostility between Mary and Satan (the serpent), and it is believed to be in the same likeness as Christ's hostility for the seed of the serpent. What exactly does all this mean? For Mary to be like Christ in His hostility for Satan forever, it is very possible to say that this passage implies Mary's lack of sin. What better way is there to be in total hostility with Satan than to be in God's constant grace? As the New Eve, Mary undid the "no" of the Old Testament Eve by saying, "yes" to carry Jesus.
Evidence from History:
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the year 1854. He did so with the understanding that this belief would help the Catholic faithful grow spiritually towards Christ. The belief that Mary was without sin was not "invented" as numerous people mistakenly think. Many are still under the false impression that the Immaculate Conception was not believed until the year 1854 when it was defined. What they fail to realize is that the belief itself has extremely strong roots in Church writings going well back into the 4th century.
"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God." - St. Augustine, 390 AD. ..
"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain." - St. Ambrose of Milan, 340-370 AD.
"You, and your Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in you, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in your Mother." - St. Ephraem, 350 AD.
In fact, there are literally dozens of cases where early Church fathers have mentioned Mary as being without sin, using such words as "All-Holy One," "All-Sinless One," and "Immaculate." It proves that the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not uncommon in the first few centuries of the Church. As time passed, the Eastern Church began to show its strong love for the Immaculate Conception with its own feast day beginning in the 8th to 9th century. By the 12th century, the Western Church was celebrating the feast of the Immaculate Conception all over Europe, and by the end of the 15th century, it was universally recognized and defended as true Christian doctrine.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-catholics-believe-in-the-immaculate-conception.html
-
OBJECTION: It is absolutely unthinkable that the Son Of God-- the second
person of the Holy Trinity --would ever allow himself to be born of an
ordinary woman!
RESPONSE: A statement like that reads sexism, personal biases, and human
sensibilities into holy writ instead of just letting holy writ speak for itself
while listening to what it has to say; and does in fact mirror a snob's attitude
towards women of lesser estate.
†. Luke 7:37-39 . . And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an
alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and
began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her
head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
. . . Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within
himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and
what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
The supercilious Pharisee adjudged that woman not good enough to be on
touchy-feely terms with a prophet, but boy was he ever wrong about that!
(cf. John 4:5-9)
It was absolutely essential that Christ be born a fellow man. Not just a man,
but a fellow man. Take away a normal mother, and Jesus would not be a
fellow man; no, he would be a mutant hominid.
†. Heb 2:16-17 . . For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he
took on him the genetics of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved
him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be sympathetic
Take way Christ's normal mother and he might be empathetic, but he could
never be sympathetic. You have to be fully human in order to be
sympathetic with another fully human being.
Mary's own human DNA was laced with the genes of prominent immoral
females in Christ's blood line: Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba; to name just
three without even mentioning the immoral males like Judah and David. And
Peres himself was a baby of adultery since Tamar was betrothed to Shelah
when she slept with Judah.
Ergo: Mary's organic human body was genetically impure from those six
people; so that even if she herself had actually been born sinless, the flesh
and blood of her female plumbing was not. Her flesh and blood was the
genetic product of at least five immoral human beings in her family's
pedigree; and a sixth born of adultery. So then, in reality, the baby Jesus
passed through the birth canal of biologically tainted human female flesh.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
OBJECTION: It is absolutely unthinkable that the Son Of God-- the second
person of the Holy Trinity --would ever allow himself to be born of an
ordinary woman!
RESPONSE: A statement like that reads sexism, personal biases, and human
sensibilities into holy writ instead of just letting holy writ speak for itself
while listening to what it has to say; and does in fact mirror a snob's attitude
towards women of lesser estate.
†. Luke 7:37-39 . . And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an
alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and
began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her
head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
. . . Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within
himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and
what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
The supercilious Pharisee adjudged that woman not good enough to be on
touchy-feely terms with a prophet, but boy was he ever wrong about that!
(cf. John 4:5-9)
It was absolutely essential that Christ be born a fellow man. Not just a man,
but a fellow man. Take away a normal mother, and Jesus would not be a
fellow man; no, he would be a mutant hominid.
†. Heb 2:16-17 . . For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he
took on him the genetics of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved
him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be sympathetic
Take way Christ's normal mother and he might be empathetic, but he could
never be sympathetic. You have to be fully human in order to be
sympathetic with another fully human being.
Mary's own human DNA was laced with the genes of prominent immoral
females in Christ's blood line: Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba; to name just
three without even mentioning the immoral males like Judah and David. And
Peres himself was a baby of adultery since Tamar was betrothed to Shelah
when she slept with Judah.
Ergo: Mary's organic human body was genetically impure from those six
people; so that even if she herself had actually been born sinless, the flesh
and blood of her female plumbing was not. Her flesh and blood was the
genetic product of at least five immoral human beings in her family's
pedigree; and a sixth born of adultery. So then, in reality, the baby Jesus
passed through the birth canal of biologically tainted human female flesh.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
CLAIM: Jesus had to be virgin-conceived in order to evade Jeconiah's curse.
RESPONSE: Most Gentiles are unaware of Jeconiah's curse, and I dare say
totally unaware of even Jeconiah himself (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah).
He was a very bad king of the Davidic dynasty; so bad that God black-listed
his family. Here's the text of the curse.
†. Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said
the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be
found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the
throne of David and to rule again in Judah.
Well; it just so happens that Joseph is biologically related to Jeconiah (Matt
1:11, Matt 1:16)
So then, it's very common for Bible teachers to appropriate Jeconiah's curse
as one of the reasons why Joseph could not be allowed to sire Mary's son
Jesus. They say that had Jesus been in Jeconiah's biological line, he would
have been disqualified from inheriting David's throne.
However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was
relatively brief.
The curse on Coniah's offspring was limited to the time of his family's
jurisdiction in Judah. In other words: the curse was in effect only during the
days of the divided kingdom with Judah in the south and Samaria in the
north. That condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the
whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian
slavery.
When Christ returns to rule, the country of Israel will be unified. His
jurisdiction won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will
dominate all of Eretz Israel. (Ezek 37:21-24)
So the curse does not apply to him. In point of fact, it didn't apply to Joseph
either seeing as how the curse ran its course only up to the time of the end
of the divided kingdom.
Another very common error is one that says Jesus circumvented the curse
via adoption. In other words, seeing as how he was Joseph's legal son but
not his biological son, then Jeconiah's curse didn't pass to Jesus.
But adoption doesn't work like that.
According to most, if not all, adoption laws; adopted children have all the
rights and privileges of children born in the home, including a right to inherit
just as if they were 100% biological kin. In addition, if a man divorces a
woman after they brought adopted children into their home, or if he adopted
his wife's children from a previous marriage, he's liable for child support
because the law recognizes no difference between an adopted child and a
child born in the home.
Therefore, since Jesus was Joseph's legal son by law, then Jesus would have
inherited any, and all, curses that may have filtered down from Mr. Jeconiah
right along with David's throne; just as if Jesus were a child born in the
home. In other words: the curse would have come with the throne as a
package deal. So if you take away Christ's inheritance rights to Jeconiah's
curse, then you must of necessity take away his inheritance rights to
Solomon's throne too.
NOTE: A number of Jews with whom I've dialogued in the past refuse to
accept Jesus' adoption as a valid succession to David's throne. But they
pretty much have to because their patriarch Jacob set a precedent for it at
Gen 48:5-7.
Long story short: Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh
and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and
power to his twelve original sons. The adoption of his own grandsons not
only had the effect of making them tribal heads, but also had the effect of
adding additional children to Rachel's brood.
Jacob's motive for adopting his son Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for
his deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CLAIM: Jesus had to be virgin-conceived in order to evade Jeconiah's curse.
RESPONSE: Most Gentiles are unaware of Jeconiah's curse, and I dare say
totally unaware of even Jeconiah himself (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah).
He was a very bad king of the Davidic dynasty; so bad that God black-listed
his family. Here's the text of the curse.
†. Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said
the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be
found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the
throne of David and to rule again in Judah.
Well; it just so happens that Joseph is biologically related to Jeconiah (Matt
1:11, Matt 1:16)
So then, it's very common for Bible teachers to appropriate Jeconiah's curse
as one of the reasons why Joseph could not be allowed to sire Mary's son
Jesus. They say that had Jesus been in Jeconiah's biological line, he would
have been disqualified from inheriting David's throne.
However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was
relatively brief.
The curse on Coniah's offspring was limited to the time of his family's
jurisdiction in Judah. In other words: the curse was in effect only during the
days of the divided kingdom with Judah in the south and Samaria in the
north. That condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the
whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian
slavery.
When Christ returns to rule, the country of Israel will be unified. His
jurisdiction won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will
dominate all of Eretz Israel. (Ezek 37:21-24)
So the curse does not apply to him. In point of fact, it didn't apply to Joseph
either seeing as how the curse ran its course only up to the time of the end
of the divided kingdom.
Another very common error is one that says Jesus circumvented the curse
via adoption. In other words, seeing as how he was Joseph's legal son but
not his biological son, then Jeconiah's curse didn't pass to Jesus.
But adoption doesn't work like that.
According to most, if not all, adoption laws; adopted children have all the
rights and privileges of children born in the home, including a right to inherit
just as if they were 100% biological kin. In addition, if a man divorces a
woman after they brought adopted children into their home, or if he adopted
his wife's children from a previous marriage, he's liable for child support
because the law recognizes no difference between an adopted child and a
child born in the home.
Therefore, since Jesus was Joseph's legal son by law, then Jesus would have
inherited any, and all, curses that may have filtered down from Mr. Jeconiah
right along with David's throne; just as if Jesus were a child born in the
home. In other words: the curse would have come with the throne as a
package deal. So if you take away Christ's inheritance rights to Jeconiah's
curse, then you must of necessity take away his inheritance rights to
Solomon's throne too.
NOTE: A number of Jews with whom I've dialogued in the past refuse to
accept Jesus' adoption as a valid succession to David's throne. But they
pretty much have to because their patriarch Jacob set a precedent for it at
Gen 48:5-7.
Long story short: Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh
and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and
power to his twelve original sons. The adoption of his own grandsons not
only had the effect of making them tribal heads, but also had the effect of
adding additional children to Rachel's brood.
Jacob's motive for adopting his son Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for
his deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
"Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate
things that are not written. That God was born of a Virgin we believe,
because we read it. That Mary was married after His birth we do not believe
because we do not read it." - Ste. Jerome -
Jerome was correct on one point. Up till the time of Christ's birth, Mary and
Joseph were betrothed, but not yet married. (Luke 2:5)
At one point in their engagement, Joseph wanted to break it off. (Matt 1:18
19)
But a heavenly messenger intervened to prevent him. (Matt 1:20)
Subsequently, Joseph continued to honor the engagement. (Matt 1:24)
Now the really significant part is: the messenger instructed Joseph to name
Mary's baby (Matt 1:21).
Joseph did as he was told. (Matt 1:25)
Mary too was ordered to name her baby: with the very same name the
messenger dictated to Joseph. (Luke 7:31)
So when the time came to give the baby his legal name, both Joseph and
Mary stepped forward together to identify themselves as Christ's parents.
†. Luke 2:21 . . And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising
of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.
Now; by some strange twist of the imagination, Jerome somehow convinced
himself that when Joseph and Mary stepped forward to give Christ his legal
name, they did so as a betrothed couple rather than a married couple. In
other words; Jerome somehow convinced himself that Christ's parents
remained engaged forever and never got around to tying the knot!
But that's not how engagements work. They are not meant to be perpetual
arrangements with no end in sight. No. When a man and woman commit
themselves to an engagement, it's with the intent and fore view of getting
married and settling down together. Why Jerome didn't get it I just don't
know.
A far more sensible take on Joseph and Mary, is that sometime between
Christ's birth and his circumcision, they tied the knot. So when they stepped
forward to give Christ his legal name, they did so as man and wife. Thus, in
full accord with the normal round of human experience: Jesus, Mary, and
Joseph were a family in every sense of the word-- a holy family; not some
freak coven consisting of a child shared by two people engaged to never be
married.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate
things that are not written. That God was born of a Virgin we believe,
because we read it. That Mary was married after His birth we do not believe
because we do not read it." - Ste. Jerome -
Jerome was correct on one point. Up till the time of Christ's birth, Mary and
Joseph were betrothed, but not yet married. (Luke 2:5)
At one point in their engagement, Joseph wanted to break it off. (Matt 1:18
19)
But a heavenly messenger intervened to prevent him. (Matt 1:20)
Subsequently, Joseph continued to honor the engagement. (Matt 1:24)
Now the really significant part is: the messenger instructed Joseph to name
Mary's baby (Matt 1:21).
Joseph did as he was told. (Matt 1:25)
Mary too was ordered to name her baby: with the very same name the
messenger dictated to Joseph. (Luke 7:31)
So when the time came to give the baby his legal name, both Joseph and
Mary stepped forward together to identify themselves as Christ's parents.
†. Luke 2:21 . . And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising
of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.
Now; by some strange twist of the imagination, Jerome somehow convinced
himself that when Joseph and Mary stepped forward to give Christ his legal
name, they did so as a betrothed couple rather than a married couple. In
other words; Jerome somehow convinced himself that Christ's parents
remained engaged forever and never got around to tying the knot!
But that's not how engagements work. They are not meant to be perpetual
arrangements with no end in sight. No. When a man and woman commit
themselves to an engagement, it's with the intent and fore view of getting
married and settling down together. Why Jerome didn't get it I just don't
know.
A far more sensible take on Joseph and Mary, is that sometime between
Christ's birth and his circumcision, they tied the knot. So when they stepped
forward to give Christ his legal name, they did so as man and wife. Thus, in
full accord with the normal round of human experience: Jesus, Mary, and
Joseph were a family in every sense of the word-- a holy family; not some
freak coven consisting of a child shared by two people engaged to never be
married.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
CLAIM: If Jesus is God, and Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that
she is the Mother of God.
RESPONSE: Christ's biological mother didn't just pop up out of nowhere. No,
she was the natural human child of a normal human relationship between a
man and a woman-- and having her biological father's and mother's genes in
her system, she would quite naturally transfer those genes to her baby
whether the baby was virgin-conceived or not.
In other words: if the Holy Spirit, as per Luke 1:26-35 used any portion of
Mary's ovum, any portion at all, for Christ's conception; then Christ has a
biological ancestry stretching clear on back to Adam.
In point of fact, prior to Christ's conception; the angel said that Mary's baby
would be David's progeny (Luke 1:32). It's easy to establish that David was
Adam's progeny because every human being that ever existed before us was
Adam's progeny.
†. Acts 17:26 . . He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire
surface of the earth
So then, in accordance with Rome's logic: Every woman in Christ's biological
line, including Mary's mother and going back to Eve, are mothers of God;
and every man in Christ's biological line, including Mary's father and going
back to Adam, are fathers of God.
If my comment isn't true; then the angel lied when it predicted Christ would
be David's progeny.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CLAIM: If Jesus is God, and Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that
she is the Mother of God.
RESPONSE: Christ's biological mother didn't just pop up out of nowhere. No,
she was the natural human child of a normal human relationship between a
man and a woman-- and having her biological father's and mother's genes in
her system, she would quite naturally transfer those genes to her baby
whether the baby was virgin-conceived or not.
In other words: if the Holy Spirit, as per Luke 1:26-35 used any portion of
Mary's ovum, any portion at all, for Christ's conception; then Christ has a
biological ancestry stretching clear on back to Adam.
In point of fact, prior to Christ's conception; the angel said that Mary's baby
would be David's progeny (Luke 1:32). It's easy to establish that David was
Adam's progeny because every human being that ever existed before us was
Adam's progeny.
†. Acts 17:26 . . He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire
surface of the earth
So then, in accordance with Rome's logic: Every woman in Christ's biological
line, including Mary's mother and going back to Eve, are mothers of God;
and every man in Christ's biological line, including Mary's father and going
back to Adam, are fathers of God.
If my comment isn't true; then the angel lied when it predicted Christ would
be David's progeny.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I've never heard of "Rome's logic" the way you put it. The ancestors of Mary don't count as mothers of God, anymore than your maternal ancestors are all your mother. You're being ridiculous.Webers_Home said:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/hahn.asp a thorough scholarly article by Prof. Scott Hahn (former anti-Catholic)
on the Blessed Virgin Mary, << a scriptural title WebersHome avoids.
on the Blessed Virgin Mary, << a scriptural title WebersHome avoids.
-
†. Gen 320 . .The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother
of all the living.
If Eve was the mother of all the living, then she was the mother of Christ;
ergo: according to Rome's logic; Eve was the mother of God.
Seeing as how Eve began producing all the living by sleeping with Adam,
then Adam was the father of Christ; ergo: according to Rome's logic; Adam
was the father of God.
†. Acts 17:26 . . He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the
entire surface of the earth.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It is not your right to count Christ's mothers; it is the Bible's right.kepha31 said:
†. Gen 320 . .The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother
of all the living.
If Eve was the mother of all the living, then she was the mother of Christ;
ergo: according to Rome's logic; Eve was the mother of God.
Seeing as how Eve began producing all the living by sleeping with Adam,
then Adam was the father of Christ; ergo: according to Rome's logic; Adam
was the father of God.
†. Acts 17:26 . . He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the
entire surface of the earth.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From the sublime to the ridiculous.Webers_Home said:
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve
Similar threads
