Immaculate Conception

[patricius79]

Really? There was a non-commissioned (by leadership in the historical magisterial seat) itinerant Preacher who more than once challenged the interpretation of those in the historical magisterial office, as did His disciples.

He was our Immaculate Mary's Son, our God, and was establishing the Magisterium of the the New Covenant Catholic Church. I know that we don't have anything written by Christ. Nor did most of the Apostles--to to go forth and preach to all nations-- write anything--at least that has been preserved.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Good-bye for awhile.

LOVE,

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Hi,

Please. You have full permissions with me to be who and what you are.

When you wrote, as an analogy: 'basically deified Mary', it was shocking.

Deifying Mary is a personal uninformed view of Mary, with much positive and popular mob lynching types of support.LOVE,

Your response seems rather disjointed and lacking in coherence, but i will respond to this, as indeed the manner of adulation and attribution of powers and attribute to Mary is far beyond what we see given to any being except God in Scripture. In which, while the Holy Spirit uses words distinctively for the activity of worship (Heb.: Todah=thanksgiving to God; Zamar=praise of God; GK: Proskuneō = worship; latreia=service of God) as well as others that are not exclusively used for such toward God, yet worship is defined by what it describes.

Such as in praying to an invisible entity with praise and adulation, imploring such for heavenly aid (sometimes including bowing down to a statute of it), and or making offerings to these supernatural beings (including wholly dedicating themselves to them), and or ascribing to such attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them.

Yet somehow RCs do all such and yet imagine that it would be understood as worship in Scripture, and argue that their activity which is identical with what only God is given in Scripture is actually merely being (in Latin) "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (Gk. = latreia) in Scripture. However, latria actually is only used for service of God in the NT, (Jn. 16:2, Rom. 9:4, Heb. 9:1; 9:6) and which service many Catholics also offer to Mary as a supernatural being in the spiritual realm, offering themselves wholly to her, and who can be corporately communicated to mentally or hear from Heaven.

Yet the Holy Spirit presents God as the only supernatural being in Heaven that offerings and total dedicatory service is made to by believers, and the only such being whom believers on earth pray to. And who can hear from Heaven those on earth who communicate mentally or otherwise. I see communication btwn created beings only taking place with both somehow being in the same realm, and with no intercession to God being requested.

In addition, although Catholics attempts to excuse their activity of worship as being "hyperdulia," and not "latria," yet "dulia" (as douleo in Greek) is used to describe worship in many places in the LXX. Such as "And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, saying, We have sinned against thee, both because we have forsaken our God, and also served [latreuo in LXX ] Baalim." (Judges 10:10)

But by employing the Catholic spin such could claim "We were only engaging in dulia, not latria. Can't you tell the difference?"

More examples

Moreover, in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."

as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);

as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
More

 

[patricius79]

Your response seems rather disjointed and lacking in coherence, but i will respond to this, as indeed the manner of adulation and attribution of powers and attribute to Mary is far beyond what we see given to any being except God in Scripture. In which, while the Holy Spirit uses words distinctively for the activity of worship (Heb.: Todah=thanksgiving to God; Zamar=praise of God; GK: Proskuneō = worship; latreia=service of God) as well as others that are not exclusively used for such toward God, yet worship is defined by what it describes.

Such as in praying to an invisible entity with praise and adulation, imploring such for heavenly aid (sometimes including bowing down to a statute of it), and or making offerings to these supernatural beings (including wholly dedicating themselves to them), and or ascribing to such attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them.

Yet somehow RCs do all such and yet imagine that it would be understood as worship in Scripture, and argue that their activity which is identical with what only God is given in Scripture is actually merely being (in Latin) "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (Gk. = latreia) in Scripture. However, latria actually is only used for service of God in the NT, (Jn. 16:2, Rom. 9:4, Heb. 9:1; 9:6) and which service many Catholics also offer to Mary as a supernatural being in the spiritual realm, offering themselves wholly to her, and who can be corporately communicated to mentally or hear from Heaven.

Yet the Holy Spirit presents God as the only supernatural being in Heaven that offerings and total dedicatory service is made to by believers, and the only such being whom believers on earth pray to. And who can hear from Heaven those on earth who communicate mentally or otherwise. I see communication btwn created beings only taking place with both somehow being in the same realm, and with no intercession to God being requested.

In addition, although Catholics attempts to excuse their activity of worship as being "hyperdulia," and not "latria," yet "dulia" (as douleo in Greek) is used to describe worship in many places in the LXX. Such as "And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, saying, We have sinned against thee, both because we have forsaken our God, and also served [latreuo in LXX ] Baalim." (Judges 10:10)

But by employing the Catholic spin such could claim "We were only engaging in dulia, not latria. Can't you tell the difference?"

More examples

Moreover, in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."

as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);

as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
More

Mary is God's Mother and the Church Christ founded says that Mary is the most holy creature, and that devotion to her is intrinsic to Christian worship of the Trinity. Moses bowed down even before the Burning Bush, as I recall, but that didn't mean he was worshiping the Bush. Rather he was worshiping the Trinity which was in the Bush, which was a symbol of the Immaculate Virgin.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

He was our Immaculate Mary's Son, our God, and was establishing the Magisterium of the the New Covenant Catholic Church. I know that we don't have anything written by Christ. Nor did most of the Apostles--to to go forth and preach to all nations-- write anything--at least that has been preserved.

Which ignores what i said, as well as what refuted this reasoning before, and simply reiterates a propagandist mantra, and which premise simply provides a carte blanche for Rome to decree what she wills to be the binding word of God, including that what she can decree what she wills to be the binding word of God. Thus the question you ignored must be asked again:

Here were have another assertion in lieu of an argument, and the question is what is the basis for the veracity of your claim? Is it because, you find the weight of Scriptural substantiation objectively compelling [that Rome is the infallible one true church], which [method] would thus sanction evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of claims, or is it because you reason that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?​

 

[patricius79]

Which ignores what i said, as well as what refuted this reasoning before, and simply reiterates a propagandist mantra, and which premise simply provides a carte blanche for Rome to decree what she wills to be the binding word of God, including that what she can decree what she wills to be the binding word of God. Thus the question you ignored must be asked again:

Here were have another assertion in lieu of an argument, and the question is what is the basis for the veracity of your claim? Is it because, you find the weight of Scriptural substantiation objectively compelling [that Rome is the infallible one true church], which [method] would thus sanction evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of claims, or is it because you reason that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?​

Anyone who knowingly and freely dissents from the teaching of the Church Christ founded as the Foundation of Truth, or knowingly and freely detracts from or neglects devotion to the Mother of God is in rebellion against God, yes. But I can't judge if someone understands the issues. Nor can I judge their level of psychological freedom. But even if one doesn't know better, it is such a sad thing for someone not to know the Mother of God as their Mother. I went many years when I believed in the importance of Mary to our relationship with Christ, on some intellectual level. But I didn't connect with it. Now I know that my relationship with Christ was weak because I wasn't relying on His Mother.

 

[katerinah1947]

Which ignores what i said, as well as what refuted this reasoning before, and simply reiterates a propagandist mantra, and which premise simply provides a carte blanche for Rome to decree what she wills to be the binding word of God, including that what she can decree what she wills to be the binding word of God. Thus the question you ignored must be asked again:

Here were have another assertion in lieu of an argument, and the question is what is the basis for the veracity of your claim? Is it because, you find the weight of Scriptural substantiation objectively compelling [that Rome is the infallible one true church], which [method] would thus sanction evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of claims, or is it because you reason that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?​

Hi,

Your refutations are meaningless, in this sense. You want others to engage in your thinking.

The Vigin Mary, was called by The Holy Spirit, through Elizabeth, The Mother of Our Lord.

Every knee shall bend before God.

Is that what God asked of Abraham? Moses? Mary?

Did the Apostles kneel?

Did the Disciples kneel?

Abraham talked to God personally. Abraham did not kneel.

God Can Do whatever He wants to. Your words do not refute anything. Do you see that? Do you understand that?

How, are you talking any differently than you would be if Moses or Abraham or Prophets were not in The Bible?

Remove any of them, and place them in Mary's position now, being with The Roman Catholic Church talking about her, But, those words are not in scripture yet.

Your words will be no different. Abraham did not see God you might say, because his knee did not bend.

No one can see God, so that didn't happen. You would go on and on.

Mary is His Mom. Jesus is King. And you are telling Jesus what He can and cannot do.

God talked about the actions you seem to be engaged in. God talked about your actions, in I think Romans 14.

The actions there, or nearby in scripture, are to not tell God, what is worship and what is not worship.

How did God tell us that? It was by telling us not to tell others what worship of God is and what worship of God is not, as in those moments;;;; we are criticizing God, and not the person.

Do you wish to not fear God? Do you wish to not be afraid of hurting His feelings?

Continue on then, and accept God's definition of one who does not fear The Lord, in criticizing the worship he has asked others to do.



She is not God. Please never say that again. You may, but you have now been asked not to.



Also, since in Acts, we are told of us being in the final days, all those things and more, that Peter said are here now, like dreams from God, are still here.

Your refutations, don't apply there either.

When did God say, rather than various and sundry Matthew 7:15-16 types, that He has decided not to talk to us again?

LOVE,

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Anyone who knowingly and freely dissents from the teaching of the Church Christ founded as the Foundation of Truth, or knowingly and freely detracts from or neglects devotion to the Mother of God is in rebellion against God, yes. But I can't judge if someone understands the issues. Nor can I judge their level of psychological freedom.

Which presupposes that Rome is the Church Christ again, and your reply is not an answer to the question as your basis for the veracity of your claim that she is. So once again,

Is it because, you find the weight of Scriptural substantiation objectively compelling [that Rome is the infallible one true church], which [method] would thus sanction evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of claims, or is it because you reason that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

Now I know that my relationship with Christ was weak because I wasn't relying on His Mother.

Oh. But while exhorting souls to do such things as return to their first love, and let the word of Christ dwell richly in them, and be nourished/built up by it, and pray to God, and endure afflictions, and look to Jesus as the only heavenly intercessor and chief Shepherd, and consider great OT men of faith, and submit to leadership, and love each other, the Holy Spirit utterly left out any word about praying to Mary, or even to submit to the pope of Rome in particular.

How presumptuous of Catholicism to help provide what the Holy Spirit would not inspire His writers to do.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Hi,

Your refutations are meaningless, in this sense. You want others to engage in your thinking.

Rather, you either lack comprehension as evidenced below, and or live in denial, while i see souls to actually o engage in thinking.

Every knee shall bend before God.
Is that what God asked of Abraham? Moses? Mary?
Did the Apostles kneel?
Did the Disciples kneel?
Abraham talked to God personally. Abraham did not kneel.

What kind of argument is this? It is meaningless, as nowhere did i argue that merely kneeling constituted worship, or that one must to do so, or to pray.

God Can Do whatever He wants to. Your words do not refute anything. Do you see that? Do you understand that?

Again, what kind of argument is this? You continue to evidence a lack of understanding, and of coherence in your own replies.

Your words will be no different. Abraham did not see God you might say, because his knee did not bend.
No one can see God, so that didn't happen. You would go on and on.

More absurdity.

Mary is His Mom. Jesus is King. And you are telling Jesus what He can and cannot do...The actions there, or nearby in scripture, are to not tell God, what is worship and what is not worship.

More absurdity, as doctrine cannot be based on the premise that God can do something, which could include giving to saints the power to created planets, but the issue here is the evidence for saying such things which are not seen in the wholly inspired word of God, and contrary to what it does say.

Do you wish to not fear God? Do you wish to not be afraid of hurting His feelings?

What? For judging claims based on what His wholly inspired word says? It is your group that presumes to think of mortals far above what is written of any such, even to ascribing powers and glory that are unique to God. Do you wish to not fear God? Do you wish to not be afraid of hurting His feelings?[

How did God tell us that? It was by telling us not to tell others what worship of God is and what worship of God is not, as in those moments;;;; we are criticizing God, and not the person.

Which is more absurdity as God is the one who says to judge things by His word. .
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Matthew 4:7)

She is not God. Please never say that again. You may, but you have now been asked not to.

Why are you telling me this? Once again seem to lack comprehension. As charged, it is Catholics who deified their false Mary, not me.

Also, since in Acts, we are told of us being in the final days, all those things and more, that Peter said are here now, like dreams from God, are still here.

Indeed, and nowhere in Acts or elsewhere were believers praying to anyone else in Heaven, seeking their intercession, but the Lord.

Your refutations, don't apply there either.

Since you do not care to quote what you are responding to, then your reply is irrelevant.

When did God say, rather than various and sundry Matthew 7:15-16 types, that He has decided not to talk to us again?

Again, what kind of argument is this? The issue is the basis for the veracity of claims, which was and remains to be upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. But for RCs the basis is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, thus allowing Rome to say what she want is the word of God.

 

[patricius79]

Which presupposes that Rome is the Church Christ again,

That the Catholic Church is Christ's Church is clear by the light of reason with faith.

and your reply is not an answer to the question as your basis for the veracity of your claim that she is. So once again,

Is it because, you find the weight of Scriptural substantiation objectively compelling [that Rome is the infallible one true church], which [method] would thus sanction evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of claims,

I find the whole Gospel--including the Marian doctrines--given by Christ through the Catholic Church to be convincing.

 

[katerinah1947]

Rather, you either lack comprehension as evidenced below, and or live in denial, while i see souls to actually o engage in thinking.

What kind of argument is this? It is meaningless, as nowhere did i argue that merely kneeling constituted worship, or that one must to do so, or to pray.

Again, what kind of argument is this? You continue to evidence a lack of understanding, and of coherence in your own replies.

More absurdity.

More absurdity, as doctrine cannot be based on the premise that God can do something, which could include giving to saints the power to created planets, but the issue here is the evidence for saying such things which are not seen in the wholly inspired word of God, and contrary to what it does say.

What? For judging claims based on what His wholly inspired word says? It is your group that presumes to think of mortals far above what is written of any such, even to ascribing powers and glory that are unique to God. Do you wish to not fear God? Do you wish to not be afraid of hurting His feelings?[

Which is more absurdity as God is the one who says to judge things by His word. .
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Matthew 4:7)

Why are you telling me this? Once again seem to lack comprehension. As charged, it is Catholics who deified their false Mary, not me.

Indeed, and nowhere in Acts or elsewhere were believers praying to anyone else in Heaven, seeking their intercession, but the Lord.

Since you do not care to quote what you are responding to, then your reply is irrelevant.

Again, what kind of argument is this? The issue is the basis for the veracity of claims, which was and remains to be upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. But for RCs the basis is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, thus allowing Rome to say what she want is the word of God.

Hi,

I read your response. Other than being grouchy and argumentative I see you have not understood what has been said.

I counted more than 7 insults, and I think I counted 4 errors.

I don't deal with people that insult me.

So, I will not engage in your three and possibly four errors.

Plus I will not discuss your missing what was said to you.

If you want to talk without casting aspersions, we can, but I will not take any more insults from you.

LOVE,

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That the Catholic Church is Christ's Church is clear by the light of reason with faith.
I find the whole Gospel--including the Marian doctrines--given by Christ through the Catholic Church to be convincing.

Which again is argument by mere assertion, and is no more substantive than simply saying "That the Catholic Church is not Christ's Church is clear by the light of reason with faith.I find the whole Gospel--including the Marian doctrines--given by Christ through the Catholic Church to be unconvincing.

However, I have stated and provided the basis for my conclusions, but as for you we are back to the questions you refuse to actually answer.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Hi,

I read your response. Other than being grouchy and argumentative I see you have not understood what has been said.

Meaning it exposes your lack of understanding as well as coherence, which you dismiss as insults.

I counted more than 7 insults, and I think I counted 4 errors.
I don't deal with people that insult me....I will not take any more insults from you.

Meaning they "insult" you by calling statements "absurd" and as exampling a lack of understanding as well as coherence, but when you post on a public forum then you are inviting public critique, and if you cannot take the heat (which trying to defend Rome especially calls for) then it is best to stay out of the kitchen.

 

[katerinah1947]

Meaning it exposes your lack of understanding as well as coherence, which you dismiss as insults.

Meaning they "insult" you by calling statements "absurd" and as exampling a lack of understanding as well as coherence, but when you post on a public forum then you are inviting public critique, and if you cannot take the heat (which trying to defend Rome especially calls for) then it is best to stay out of the kitchen.

Hi,

I did leave. I came back to see.

Insults are Biblical. They are the thorns around supposed grapes, in Matthew 7-16, for women.

One does not pick grapes, or find grapes in the midst of thorns.

It is hard to talk to someone whose goal is meanness.

Besides the true meaning of things about God are never given to mean people.

Your so called critique is not. It is merely debate.

Now. Do you want to engage me in Bible slinging on my knowledge of God? After all, you declared this, it is a public forum, and this is my second complaint with you, after your briar actions, to which The Bible says that All Christians, are to follow what is in there, it is your poor understanding of The Bible.

The Bible after all is LOVE.

Since you do not understand that, or shouldn't, I will help you.

The Bible is also about God, in that All The Old Law can be summarized. Jesus summarized that for us.

The summary you remember hopefully. It is Love God. Love your neighbor as your self. Jesus corrected marriage, as being for life on earth. He also gave us a new Command, to LOVE, others as He has loved us.

The Bible after all is LOVE, and that LOVE, consists of this, not that we have loved, but that we have been loved.

That last sentence is in your Bible, or it should be if you are using the Bible that everyone else is.

Jesus demonstrated that love to us, by not Doing, not His Will, but His Father's Will in Heaven.

That is where love is defined by God.


Now, you are throwing Bible verses around, in a briar like fashion, and when asked to stop, you justify your actions as correct.

So, tell me this, you who claim to know so much, by your silent remarks, the ones that are always there with insults.

You did know that an insult, is always a statement that the insultor, is not what the insulted person is, DID YOU NOT?

Insults are a silent complement, of the person making the insult.

Psalms 110:1, was used by Jesus, to talk about The Trinity. And you know that Jesus was decoding Psalms 2, in doing that, and also Psalms 110:1. Psalms 2, has in it "This day I have begotten you" and it contains The Trinity in a way that confirms that the translated usage of The Lord, is in fact God The Father.

But, you already know that. By your words calling me, lacking in knowlege and coherence, you know that.

You also know that seeking Jesus, as being written about in Psalms is valid, because it is said that He is written about, by Moses. And you know where that is said. John 5:46.

Thus, you know that in Psalms 110-1, God The Holy Spirit had King David say, God The Father said to God The Son, sit here at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool beneath you.

But, when Detractors to Jesus, would not answer that question, that The Son of David is The Son of God, and is Jesus that is before them Who is asking them that question, Jesus refused to answer any more of their questions.

Why? Was it because they were incapable of understanding? Why?

You are bringing out verses, in support of your position, leaving out the understanding Peter gave us, that prophecy and dreams are not gone.

You are saying things as though the Holy Spirit decided not to be here on earth anymore, with the Catholics, but He is with you and your group of like minded individuals.

Meanness, if I am a Bible Thumping, Jesus Freaking Christian also, And I Am, says that I must use every Proven Statement in That Book, AND, I must use every clear statement in that book, on Faith alone, if I have no other proofs.

On Matthew 7:16, I have the proofs for what that means.

It means that, I am on faith alone, to follow what that passage is there for.

That passage is there for, False Prophets, meaning in mean people, their interpretations of scripture are not correct.

DO YOU SEE THE BIND YOU HAVE PUT ME INTO?

DO YOU?

LOVE,

 

[Chriliman]

Pay attention to primarily verse 4 here. I'm not sure if this is ever used to support the Immaculate Conception, but I came across it in my reading this morning, and that's the first thing that crossed my mind. I'm not Catholic.

Job 14
English Standard Version (ESV)

Job Continues: Death Comes Soon to All

1 “Man who is born of a woman
is few of days and full of trouble.
2 He comes out like a flower and withers;
he flees like a shadow and continues not.
3 And do you open your eyes on such a one
and bring me into judgment with you?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
There is not one.

If Jesus was/is clean, and he absolutely was/is, then Mary couldn't have been unclean according to this verse. But then, of course, we run into the problem of, "Was Mary's mother clean, then? And so on and so forth?"

I think the point of that verse is to remind us that we cannot make ourselves clean, only God can.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

NICE. And now hopefully a treat for you, on Vatican II.
The old retired totally spiritual Catholic priest from Fargo North Dakota, who is suffering from Parkinson's, that will kill him back then in about five to seven years from then not now, but at this time none of us know that as he is asymptomatic:
"I want you to read Vatican II and tell me what you think."
What in the world would a cleric be asking me to do that for., No I think I said.
I walked close to him, outside of Saint Mary's in Corvallis. Near the bell outside I think he was.
A priest does not ask me I thought, such a thing.
LOVE,

No offense, but is English your first language?

 

[patricius79]

Hi,

I did leave. I came back to see.

Insults are Biblical. They are the thorns around supposed grapes, in Matthew 7-16, for women.

One does not pick grapes, or find grapes in the midst of thorns.

It is hard to talk to someone whose goal is meanness.

Besides the true meaning of things about God are never given to mean people.

That is true. He who abide in love abides in God. He who hates his brother does not know God. We all need to work at being respectful of one another through the Kind Virgin and her Son.

 

[patricius79]

Oh. But while exhorting souls to do such things as return to their first love, and let the word of Christ dwell richly in them, and be nourished/built up by it, and pray to God, and endure afflictions, and look to Jesus as the only heavenly intercessor and chief Shepherd, and consider great OT men of faith, and submit to leadership, and love each other, the Holy Spirit utterly left out any word about praying to Mary, or even to submit to the pope of Rome in particular.

How presumptuous of Catholicism to help provide what the Holy Spirit would not inspire His writers to do.

How strong do you think arguments from silence are? Or why does the Bible never teach the idea of Sola Scriptura? I think the Bible is very clear that we are to hold fast to both the written and the oral word (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and about how the Church is built on Simon Rock, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. The Church teaches that devotion to the holy creature, Mary, is intrinsic to the worship of God.

 

[katerinah1947]

No offense, but is English your first language?

Hi,

Yes. American, pronounced Ahh-Mare-EE-Kahhn, when I am nervous or under stress or embarrassed, is my primary and only language.

With difficulty, I can talk like an American.

When not paying attention, I sound like a foreigner.

Also when writing, if it is important, I write what I feel while analyzing what I am feeling to see if it is correct., while actively writing, and it is not usually changed ever, from the way it was put down.

I do not know why you asked the question, and I do not know if you have been answered, and I am dreadfully sorry, if I seem abstruse, esoteric, arrogant or any other incorrect way of communicating.

And I hope I am none of those things either.

Perhaps you are picking up, that since, from The Virgin Mary, in answering her call, eventually but not the month she called me, several months later, since she treated me to seeing The Essence of God, and her Son Jesus, in letting me Know His Core Personality, plus seeing her as she looked when she was 49 years old and still on earth, plus dealing with her Spouse The Holy Spirit in the Wind for a whole day, and He and she were not pleased with me breaking my word on something, that after that, my writing actually started for the first time in my life, so I never have been a writer, maybe all of that is what is bothering you, if something is bothering you.

LOVE,

 

[patricius79]

as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

Christ did explicitly insist, four times in a row, that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. And Mary did suffer with Christ for our sins as she watched her own child crucified before her eyes. But the role of Mary in our salvation is completely dependent on her Divine Son.