Was Mary the greatest woman that ever lived?

[shinbits]

No mention of Tweety Bird either.

One reason is because Tweety Bird is fictional. A "new Eve", Biblically speaking, is fictional.

 

[boswd]

The Bible never mentions Zenyatta winning the Breeders Cup Classic yesterday, so I suppose that did not happen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Bible never mentions Zenyatta winning the Breeders Cup Classic yesterday, so I suppose that did not happen.

Zenyatta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zenyatta (foaled April 1, 2004 in Kentucky) is an American Champion Thoroughbred racehorse.

She is an unbeaten 14 for 14. Zenyatta has defeated Grade I or Group 1 winners Gio Ponti, Twice Over, Summer Bird, Colonel John, Richard's Kid, Mine That Bird, Rip Van Winkle, Einstein, Ginger Punch, Hystericalady, Life Is Sweet, Tough Tiz's Sis, Romance Is Diane, Double Trouble, Sealy Hill, Cocoa Beach, Santa Teresita, Carriage Trail, and Music Note. She has won fourteen races from as many starts, twelve of these being Graded stakes races including eight Grade I events. [1]

She is 1 of only 3 undefeated Champions in American racing history, the others being the immortal Colin and the Super Filly Personal Ensign.

 

[shinbits]

Edit

 

[shinbits]

The Bible never mentions Zenyatta winning the Breeders Cup Classic yesterday, so I suppose that did not happen.

The Bible never mentions that Mary wasn't a hairy, unatractive woman who used foul language from time to time, so I suppose it could've happened.

 

[Dorothea]

This is just ridiculous. we've been arguing for pages about a subject that was cleared up centuries ago that spoke of Mary's ever-virginity through the Church councils. She was chaste her whole life. Why are people arguing for this false teaching? I need a break from this forum.

 

[shinbits]

This is just ridiculous. we've been arguing for pages about a subject that was cleared up centuries ago that spoke of Mary's ever-virginity through the Church councils. She was chaste her whole life. Why are people arguing for this false teaching? I need a break from this forum.

Whenever people go outside the Bible for "doctrine", that opens up the door for false teaching. Just look at the Mormons. Just look Catholics, they believe that their "church father" Joseph Smith was given "truths" outside of the Bible, like Jesus was spotted in America with the desciples, or the "holy underware" doctrine.

Or the Jehova's Witnesses, who believe Satan is Jesus' brother. They also claim their unbiblical doctrines are "truth".

Likewise, ever-virginity, Purgatory and other such doctrines are born because people sought "truth" apart from the Bible.

People still argue certain doctrines about Mary, because just like with the Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, unbiblical Catholic doctrine is just as destructive.

 

[prodromos]

Whenever people go outside the Bible for "doctrine", that opens up the door for false teaching.

Whenever people go outside the boundaries set by the Church, that opens up the door for false teaching.

John

 

[shinbits]

Whenever people go outside the boundaries set by the Church, that opens up the door for false teaching.

John

What about when the Catholic church charged people to get loved ones out of Purgatory? Should the people not have rebelled against the Church's false teachings then?

Or would you argue that Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses shouldn't go outside the boundaries of thier church teachings? Unless you believe Jesus is merely an angel or believe that you must wear holy underwear, the answer is, of course not.

Staying with Biblical teaching is the only way to keep from false doctrine.

Peace.

 

[prodromos]

What about when the Catholic church charged people to get loved ones out of Purgatory? Should the people not have rebelled against the Church's false teachings then?

Rome has indeed stepped outside the boundaries set by the Church.

Staying with Biblical teaching is the only way to keep from false doctrine.

But who's interpretation of the bible do you follow? All the heresies that rocked the Church in the early centuries were "bible based".

John

 

[shinbits]

Rome has indeed stepped outside the boundaries set by the Church.

How? The Roman Catholic Church is the "Church", or at least it's headquarters. The "Church" has no one to blame for their heresies but themselves.

But who's interpretation of the bible do you follow? All the heresies that rocked the Church in the early centuries were "bible based".

John

We are to take the aproach of the Bereans, and interpret the Bible for ourselves. The Bible even commended them for doing so:

Acts 17:11:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Peace.

 

[MamaZ]

Mary is not raised above any other woman of God. She was saved as any other woman is saved and that is by Grace through Faith. God chose Mary to carry Christ in the Human form to birth Him on earth. He chooses all His children to Carry Christ in the Spirit to shine and empower His people to be witnesses unto Him.

 

[narnia59]

How? The Roman Catholic Church is the "Church", or at least it's headquarters. The "Church" has no one to blame for their heresies but themselves.


We are to take the aproach of the Bereans, and interpret the Bible for ourselves. The Bible even commended them for doing so:

Acts 17:11:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Peace.

The Bereans were not sola-scriptura. If they had been, they would never have accepted Paul's oral testimony regarding Jesus, that he had been born of a virgin, crucified, died, resurrected. None of that information was in any scripture of their time.

They accepted Paul's oral testimony (tradition) and reviewed the OT scriptures to see if they indeed prophesied these things as Paul said they did. But the information they accepted about Jesus as being true was not yet part of Scripture. They accepted the oral tradition given by Paul.

Holding to the standard sola-scripturists say they held, they would have rejected Christ as the Messiah. After all, it wasn't in the Bible (for them).

 

[shinbits]

The Bereans were not sola-scriptura. If they had been, they would never have accepted Paul's oral testimony regarding Jesus, that he had been born of a virgin, crucified, died, resurrected. None of that information was in any scripture of their time.

They accepted Paul's oral testimony (tradition) and reviewed the OT scriptures to see if they indeed prophesied these things as Paul said they did. But the information they accepted about Jesus as being true was not yet part of Scripture. They accepted the oral tradition given by Paul.

Holding to the standard sola-scripturists say they held, they would have rejected Christ as the Messiah. After all, it wasn't in the Bible (for them).

The Bereans didn't simply accept what Paul said, the Bible says they checked everything Paul said and measured it against the Scriptures. If what Paul said couldn't be found in the Scriptures, the Bereans wouldn't have accept any "oral tradition" Paul gave them. That's why the Bible commends them so.

Unfortunately, Catholics don't hold to the same standard as the Bereans, whom the Bible refered to as not only noble, but "more noble" than those who didn't check the Scriptures. Unlike the Bereans, Catholics accepted things that couldn't be verified in the Bible, which is a shame.

Holding only to Sola-scriptua, as you call it, the Bereans would've accepted Christ, because of the many prophecies in the OT that fortold of Christ and the events of his life. After all, it WAS in the Bible (OT) for them.

Peace.

 

[shinbits]

The Bereans were not sola-scriptura. If they had been, they would never have accepted Paul's oral testimony regarding Jesus, that he had been born of a virgin, crucified, died, resurrected. None of that information was in any scripture of their time.

Really? Who told you that? Did you just accept what your church told you without checking to see if what they said was true?

Here, OT Scripture:

Born of a virgin

"Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son..." (Isaiah 7:14)


Crucified

"They pierced my hands and my feet." (Psalm 22:16)

(Isaiah 53:12)
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;


Ressurected

"Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay". (Psalm 16:10)


"None of that was in any Scripture of thier time", eh?

Catholic teaching has caused you to be ignorant of, and wrong about the Scriptures. I hope this revelation brings you into the Light.

Peace.

 

[Mobiosity]

Whenever people go outside the Bible for "doctrine", that opens up the door for false teaching.

 

[lionroar0]

Really? Who told you that? Did you just accept what your church told you without checking to see if what they said was true?

Here, OT Scripture:

Born of a virgin

"Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son..." (Isaiah 7:14)


Crucified

"They pierced my hands and my feet." (Psalm 22:16)

(Isaiah 53:12)
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;


Ressurected

"Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay". (Psalm 16:10)


"None of that was in any Scripture of thier time", eh?

Catholic teaching has caused you to be ignorant of, and wrong about the Scriptures. I hope this revelation brings you into the Light.

Peace.

The Catholic teaching is that the OT prefigues the NT.

No revelation in your above post.

Also your argument implies that any one who reads the Scriptures would have accepted St. Paul's words. History states otherwise. Jesus was crucified by His own people. St. Stephen was killed by Jews incited by St. Paul.

I hope that you have that this revelation brings you to the light that Scriptures is never alone.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Whenever people go outside the Bible for "doctrine", that opens up the door for false teaching.

Many people that have gone by Bible alone have fallen into heresy.

Here are just a few.

Montanist. Nestorians, Docetist, modalist, gnostics, Arians. They all went by bible alone.

 

[narnia59]

The Bereans didn't simply accept what Paul said, the Bible says they checked everything Paul said and measured it against the Scriptures. If what Paul said couldn't be found in the Scriptures, the Bereans wouldn't have accept any "oral tradition" Paul gave them. That's why the Bible commends them so.

Unfortunately, Catholics don't hold to the same standard as the Bereans, whom the Bible refered to as not only noble, but "more noble" than those who didn't check the Scriptures. Unlike the Bereans, Catholics accepted things that couldn't be verified in the Bible, which is a shame.

Holding only to Sola-scriptua, as you call it, the Bereans would've accepted Christ, because of the many prophecies in the OT that fortold of Christ and the events of his life. After all, it WAS in the Bible (OT) for them.

Peace.

If what Paul said couldn't be found in the Scriptures, the Bereans wouldn't have accept any "oral tradition" Paul gave them.

Really? So what Scripture did they look at to verify that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was indeed born of a virgin? And what Scripture did they look at that told them that Jesus Christ of Nazareth rose from the dead? They had OT prophecies that indicated these things would be true of the Messiah. They had nothing linking Jesus to those prophesies except the oral testimony of Paul. It is the church that testified to these things long before they were recorded in Scripture, and it is the church whose oral tradition the Bereans accepted regarding the facts of the life of Christ.

It is then the church who testifies to the validity of the NT testament books that were ultimately accepted as scripture, based on the oral tradition which preceded it.

Perhaps that is why Scripture refers to the manifold wisdom of the church, and that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

 

[narnia59]

Really? Who told you that? Did you just accept what your church told you without checking to see if what they said was true?

Here, OT Scripture:

Born of a virgin

"Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son..." (Isaiah 7:14)


Crucified

"They pierced my hands and my feet." (Psalm 22:16)

(Isaiah 53:12)
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;


Ressurected

"Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay". (Psalm 16:10)


"None of that was in any Scripture of thier time", eh?

Catholic teaching has caused you to be ignorant of, and wrong about the Scriptures. I hope this revelation brings you into the Light.

Peace.

All of that was Scripture in their time. But did they have any evidence outside the oral testimony of Paul that Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected from the dead? I would be interested in knowing what that was.