Immaculate Conception???

[Invalidusername]

I am saying that your belief is a contradiction that can potentially lead certain folks down the wrong path if you do not explain yourself correctly. For when you say that a person is saved by "God's grace + no obedience" and you say nothing more, that can lead others to think that one can sin and still be saved. I also did not write a post that agrees with everything you said. I believe obedience is a part of salvation still. My post was not in contradiction to that. It is saying that this obedience is surrendering to the good work the Lord does through us. This is done after we are saved by God's grace.

Except I assumed that I am talking to people educated about these matters so thus that's why I did not explain every single little thing. I assumed that you have a foundation in scripture, otherwise what are you doing here?

Now as I've said before, deeds are PROOF that we are saved. If you don't have deeds, your faith is "dead" which either means you don't have saving faith or you are in a backslidden state and perhaps on your way to apostasy. However if you are saved and have the Spirit of God, you will have good works. I've already said this like 5 times already.

Your biggest most disgusting error is believing that there are truly sinless people who walked on this earth who was not Jesus Christ. This contradicts every single thing in scripture and you fail to understand that someone can be righteous but also a sinner. In fact a good example of this would be King David. He was said to be someone "after God's heart" yet he committed some of the worst sins in the history of Christians. Yet he was able to obtain righteousness because he had a repentant heart and faith in God.

 

[MountainPine]

So the Law has changed, just as Hebrews 7:12 says.

Only the Law concerning the priesthood has been changed, according to the passage. The change was from the Levitical priesthood to the prophetic priesthood (the order of Melchizedek). Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, perfected in it. Those who are perfected in it (John 17:11, Romans 8:14) have no need of making sacrifices, because they do not sin (1 John 3:9). It is not that the mandates of the Torah have been done away with, but the law of sacrifice. The Levitical sacrificial laws were set in place as a penalty for breaking the Law. Those who are perfected in Christ, the renewed men (Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:23) have no need to make sacrifices because they don't break the Law, but obey the Law in spirit. This is what the new covenant was all about, to reestablish the old one into his people.

[Jeremiah 31:33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

[Hebrews 8:10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.

Jesus clearly said that "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Heaven and Earth have not passed away yet, so God's law is still in effect.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

John defines sin as transgression against the Law (1 John 3:4). If the Law has been done away with, then we have nothing to define sin.

"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Matthew 7:15).

Jesus was saying this to the Pharisees because they were accusing his disciples of breaking their tradition of washing their hands before eating. Any dirt that may have been on their food from their dirty hands touching it would have been cleaned out via digestion. He goes on to say

"But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and these defile the man. For out of the heart come forth wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, whorings, thefts, false witnessings, slanders. These defile the man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man"

One cannot eat meat without first murdering the animal, so putting what came from murder into your mouth is what defiles you. So clearly Jesus was not giving the green light for us to eat whatever we want.

There is a similar passage from Mark 7:19: "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" The additional narrative where Jesus supposedly declared all foods clean is only found in the contemporary versions of the Bible. It is not found in the King James Bible or any of the Greek manuscripts. Some versions even say that he declared all meats clean. The narrative was clearly added to support the bias of the translators.

1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
(1 Timothy 4:1-5).

In the KJV, "meat" had the meaning of "food" and "flesh" had the meaning of meat (e.g. Genesis 1:29 KJV). You need to consider that the meanings of words back in 1611 were different than in modern English. The passage uses G1033 βρωμάτων which means "food". Also, anyone who is sincere in obeying God's Law and/or abstaining from meat, like I do, do not have seared consciences or is forbidding marriage. Paul was referring to a certain faction of Essenes who were considering marriage to be a sin, because it was a carnal desire. Josephus talks about this a bit

Yet, in the New way: Seeking to be justified by circumcision means Christ profits us nothing, though.

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." (Galatians 5:2).

Quoting myself from another thread:

I'm going to share with you a discussion I had with someone on ReligiousForums.com. This was his argument (quoting Galatians):

Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”
5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”
5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”
6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”

This was my response:

No, the Galatians passage says "All who depend on the works of the Law...." ἔργων (ergon) means "works" or "deeds" not "observance". What translation are you quoting from? Paul backs up his argument by quoting from Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.” Obviously one who depends on the works of the Law is one who is going through the motions—those only concerned about circumcision, dietary restrictions, Sabbath/Feast observances, ritual sacrifices, etc. and ignoring the more important things like loving your neighbor as yourself, thou shall not kill, etc. (that is not to say these are not important, but failing to adhere to the Law's wisdom is missing the point). Christ got onto the Pharisees about this, saying that they "ignore the weightier matters of the Law." (Matthew 23:23) and they "reject the commandments of God for their own tradition" (Mark 7:9). The Pharisees are an example of people who depend on the works of the Law, but those who obey the Law in full are the ones with the faith. Faith is defined as expecting that God will do as he promised in return for our full obedience. (see Hebrews 5:8-9) If you are circumcised but are disobedient, then your circumcision means nothing. Abraham was rewarded because he obeyed God, therefore the true covenant of Abraham is obedience. Circumcision is only an outward expression of it. If you consider the tone of language that Paul was using to write to the Galatians, you can tell that he was displeased with them and was telling them off for disobedience.

Paul never did away with the Law either. There is much evidence in scripture to prove this:

Paul always kept the Sabbath (Acts 17:1, Acts 18:4)
Paul kept the Feasts (Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16)
Paul instructed us to keep the Feasts (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)
Paul believed all of the Torah (Acts 24:14)
Paul stated that we establish the Torah (Romans 3:31)
Paul taught from the Torah (Acts 28:23)
Paul obeyed the Torah (Acts 21:24, Romans 7:25)
Paul took delight in the Torah (Romans 7:22)
Paul said the Torah is holy (Romans 7:12)
Paul said the Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14)
Paul said not to judge anyone observing the Torah (Colossians 2:16-17)
Paul said that doers of the Torah are justified (Romans 2:13)
Paul said teachers who break the Torah dishonor Yahweh and blaspheme His name (Romans 2:21-24)
Paul said we learn what sin is from the Torah (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7)
Paul taught that being under grace is not a license to break the Torah (Romans 6:15)

 

[Eloy Craft]

Please show me verses that say we that we receive Jesus through Mary please.

That wouldn't be constructive. We would divert the discussion to a battle of scripture meanings. How about I ask you this, is there a single person in the bible that ever entered life in the world without first being formed in their mother's womb? Didn't the world receive you that way? Didn't the world receive Jesus in the same way?

 

[MountainPine]

I'll leave you with this, if you think those "righteous" people in the Bible never sinned then you are completely 100% missing where righteousness comes from.

Sin is unrighteousness, which is the antithesis of righteousness. Sinners do not possess the righteousness of Christ. Here are some examples:

Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. John 9:31

And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil. Isaiah 1:15-16

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. [. . .] In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John 3:8, 10

The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. Psalm 34:15-16

 

[Eloy Craft]

This passage speaks of nothing about how we receive Jesus through Mary.

I didn't intend it to. It was addressing redemptive suffering. Which was the topic you introduced. Maybe my response will make sense in the proper light.

Uh, no. We do not receive salvation through Mary. Jesus is the only way. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Mary said she rejoiced in God her savior. So she needed God to save her. She was not a co-Savior. No such verse in the Bible ever says that or even hints at that idea.

 

[MountainPine]

This is the only thing that Jesus had to say concerning his mother:

[John 2:4] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Oh snap!

 

[MountainPine]

Your biggest most disgusting error is believing that there are truly sinless people who walked on this earth who was not Jesus Christ.

What's disgusting is your accusation that Enoch, Job and Noah were sinners. Satan is the accuser, just saying.

 

[Eloy Craft]

This is the only thing that Jesus had to say concerning his mother:

[John 2:4] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Oh snap!

The word Woman in the bible is a title. When Jesus used that title it meant some one of the utmost importance, He used it one other time. The Samaritan Woman at the well. She is also an archetype. It's not a demeaning term at all in the ancient Jewish culture. You project a modern distortion onto the term. Also the answer to that question was [John 2;5] His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

 

[MountainPine]

Also the answer to that question was [John 2;5] His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

John 2:5 is not a license to make her a mediatrix between man and Christ. We don't need Mary to have a relationship with Christ. Mary cannot pray for sinners because sinners are beyond salvation. Only the righteous inherit life.

The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. Psalm 34:15-16

This means that even if Mary was assumed and is praying for sinners, then she is being ignored. God demands nothing short of righteousness.

FYI, Mary is a Christianized version for the Roman goddess Magna Mater. She is a false god. Jesus' mother is dead and will not live again until the resurrection.

 

[Eloy Craft]

John 2:5 is not a license to make her a mediatrix between man and Christ. We don't need Mary to have a relationship with Christ. Mary cannot pray for sinners because sinners are beyond salvation. Only the righteous inherit life.

Think about how you are saying things here. . A license to 'make' Mary a mediatrix? No one can make Mary a mediatrix. No one can unmake Mary a mediatrix if that is how God's plan unfolded. You don't need Mary to have prepared a Body for Our Savior? Whether you like it or not, that is how God did it. That being the case maybe you should ask God if He would move His mother out of the way so you wouldn't need her to have a relationship with Him. Snap! Jesus chose to need His Mother before you could have a relationship with Him..

 

[Eloy Craft]

FYI, Mary is a Christianized version for the Roman goddess Magna Mater. She is a false god. Jesus' mother is dead and will not live again until the resurrection.

I find it difficult to believe that someone who is Christian could stoop so low as to call Our Saviors Mother a Pagan goddess or claim she is dead. Jesus said Abraham is alive. Just keep your hate going over to us Catholics and leave Jesus' mom out of it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Except I assumed that I am talking to people educated about these matters so thus that's why I did not explain every single little thing. I assumed that you have a foundation in scripture, otherwise what are you doing here?

No. What you have are ad homonyms as your primary defense now and not Scripture. I did not insult your character and yet you are insulting me. Please explain the verses I have put forth and prove your case for your belief. If not, then it does not help to prove what you say is true. Insulting me only hinders your case and it does not help it.

Now as I've said before, deeds are PROOF that we are saved. If you don't have deeds, your faith is "dead" which either means you don't have saving faith or you are in a backslidden state and perhaps on your way to apostasy. However if you are saved and have the Spirit of God, you will have good works. I've already said this like 5 times already.

Then you must conclude that works (deeds) is a part of the salvation equation because you said that, "deeds are PROOF that we are saved." For you said, "If you don't have deeds, your faith is dead." Yet, you keep contradicting yourself by saying that works are not done for salvation. I know. I used to also believe in the contradiction that said that we are saved by God's grace + no works and yet I also said that a true believer will have works as a part of showing their faith. It took me a while to get past what men said and figure out that I was believing in a contradiction. I think the confusion arises because of Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5. But what these pieces of Scripture are saying is that we are "Initially Saved" and or "Ultimately Saved" by God's grace and not of works. Paul was trying to refute "Works Alone Salvationism" that did not include God's grace as the foundation (While going back to the Old Covenant Law that is no more in effect). Believers are under a New Covenant with New Commands.

Your biggest most disgusting error is believing that there are truly sinless people who walked on this earth who was not Jesus Christ. This contradicts every single thing in scripture and you fail to understand that someone can be righteous but also a sinner.

Red flags abounding here.

This is the problem in what you believe. You said that a believer can be righteous and also a sinner. This suggests that a person can still sin and still be righteous. Yet, before you said that, "deeds are PROOF that we are saved."

1 John 3:7 says he that does righteousness is righteous.
What does this verse mean to you?

1 John 3:8 says he that sins is of the devil.
What does this verse mean to you?

Please take note that 1 John 3:15 says he that hates is brother is a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Does this mean that John is speaking about how we can hate our brother on occasion? No. One act of murder can make you a murderer. One act of hatred towards your brother unresolved can make you a hater of your brother and that means no eternal life for a believer.

So how can a believer be righteous and yet also a sinner? Are you talking in the present tense? Do you not realize that Jesus told certain believers who did many wonderful works to depart from him because they ALSO worked iniquity (sin)? (See Matthew 7:23). In other words, you cannot do righteous things (good) and yet also do evil (if that is what you are suggesting). It doesn't work like that. A good tree is known by the fact that it brings forth good fruit. A bad tree is known by the fact that it brings forth bad fruit.

In fact a good example of this would be King David. He was said to be someone "after God's heart" yet he committed some of the worst sins in the history of Christians. Yet he was able to obtain righteousness because he had a repentant heart and faith in God.

Ah, I am glad you brought up David. Do you believe David was still saved while he was committing his sins of adultery and murder? Yes, or no?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I didn't intend it to. It was addressing redemptive suffering. Which was the topic you introduced. Maybe my response will make sense in the proper light.

It sounded to me like you were saying that Mary plays a part in our salvation (in the present tense). Yes, she gave birth to the Savior, but that is it. She brought salvation by her being a vessel for the one who is salvation itself. Praying to Mary does not save a person. Catholics believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven. Do you believe that? Are you Catholic? Do you believe we can pray to Mary?

 

[Athanasius377]

"Thus also the demonstration makes the matter clear to us. Since the Savior of the world, with the purpose of saving the race of men, was born of the immaculate and virgin Mary." Hyppolytus

That’s Psuedo-Hyppolytus and that quote is pseudepigrapha. This is a silly error. if you are going to use this you should denote it is a disputed text. This happens when you are searching blindly for a word and not paying attention to the overall context. It shows a certain unfamiliarity with the sources. In one of my patristics sets the title where the quote is taken from is:Appendix to Hyppolytus containing dubious and spurious pieces. I have the source information if you want to verify it yourself.

Pseudo-Hippolytus of Rome. (1886). A Discourse by the Most Blessed Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, on the End of the World, and on Antichrist, and on the Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), S. D. F. Salmond (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, pp. 247–248). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

"The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life." Athanasius (On the Incarnation of the Word 8).

Let's plug this back into context: Emphasis is mine.

The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life

For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. 2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery—lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought—He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father—doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire.



Athanasius of Alexandria. (1892). On the Incarnation of the Word. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. T. Robertson (Trans.), St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Vol. 4, p. 40). New York: Christian Literature Company.


Again you again argument misses the mark. What Athanasius is saying by immaculate is not what you mean. He defines what he means by saying "pure of intercourse by men". Furthermore, if what you say is true why are all men under penalty of death? Where is Mary exempted from his argument? The reason is simple, he doesn’t believe or seem to know anything about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

"You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" Ephraem the Syrian (Nisibene Hymns 27:8).

I cannot locate the text of this Hymn anywhere to verify its context. I have a translation of these hymns but it lists several including this one as being fragmentary. Can you provide a source with the full text o the hymn? I have looked extensively though my sources and for a trail on the web and came up with nothing.

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim (Hymns on the Nativity 15:23).

23. Let women praise Her, the pure Mary,—that as in Eve their mother,—great was their reproach,—lo! in Mary their sister,—greatly magnified was their honour.

R., Blessed is He Who sprang from women![1]


This is responsorial hymn and by calling her pure does not indicate anything about her being free from original sin. It does indicate that she was pure as it relates to sexual intercourse (Virgin Birth) which no orthodox Christian denies.

[1] Ephrem the Syrian. (1898). Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), J. B. Morris & A. E. Johnston (Trans.), Gregory the Great (Part II), Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat (Vol. 13, p. 254). New York: Christian Literature Company.

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30).

There are two issues here, first I cannot locate the source of the quote. I suspect it's one of those things that gets parroted around from catholic answers but no one knows the source or context. Second, someone forgot that Psalm 118 only has 29 verses. Is this commentary using the LXX numbering of the Psalms? Can you provide the text and source of this commentary in English please?

Most of the bishops, not all but most, were Arian, before and even after the council of Nicea. Athanasius argued for the consubstaniality of the Father and the Son (not for the Trinity, which was at the council of Constantinople) based on the tradition of the grandparents of Alexandria who knew that Jesus Christ was God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, of the same stuff as the Father. They new what Arius was saying was fishy and they would go out into the desert on Sundays to hear the Liturgy from the hermits rather than hear more of this Arianism from the Arian appointed priests in the city. Arius had great Scriptural arguments against the Father and the Son being consubstantial, twisted arguments, but very compelling nonetheless. It was tradition that trumped twisted Arian Scriptural exigesis.

Um, no. The liturgy contained the Scriptures and was taught the rule of faith drawn there from. This wasn't some obscure tradition it was exegesis. Have you read all of "On the Incarnation of the Word"? Did you notice how often Athanasius cites scripture? No, Arius did not have a compelling argument when he has to explain way large portions of scripture.

The problem you are having is that you must make the ECF appear to be modern RC when in fact they are not. Your tradition forces you to do this so Rome can have the appearance of continuity. I can read the ECF and let them be the ECF without having to make them appear to be Lutheran.

 

[Eloy Craft]

[deleted copy

 

[Eloy Craft]

It sounded to me like you were saying that Mary plays a part in our salvation (in the present tense). Yes, she gave birth to the Savior, but that is it. She brought salvation by her being a vessel for the one who is salvation itself. Praying to Mary does not save a person. Catholics believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven. Do you believe that? Are you Catholic? Do you believe we can pray to Mary?

You have a way of sidestepping difficult questions making it look like you did snd expecting yours to be answered.

Why is Jesus Mothers suffering the only other human suffering combined with the suffering of Jesus from a Prophet of the Old covenant ? Why is hers prophecied with His? You seem to say there is no reason for it. Is it because you know no resson for it. You have confidence about what it's not but that should reflect confidence from knowing what it is

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have a way of sidestepping difficult questions making it look like you did snd expecting yours to be answered.

Why is Jesus Mothers suffering the only other human suffering combined with the suffering of Jesus from a Prophet of the Old covenant ? Why is hers prophecied with His? You seem to say there is no reason for it. Is it because you know no resson for it. You have confidence about what it's not but that should reflect confidence from knowing what it is

Again, you are suggesting that Mary plays a part in our salvation. You need to show me actual real verses that suggests this. If not, you are wasting your time, my friend.

In any event, may God bless you.

 

[MountainPine]

Think about how you are saying things here. . A license to 'make' Mary a mediatrix? No one can make Mary a mediatrix. No one can unmake Mary a mediatrix if that is how God's plan unfolded. You don't need Mary to have prepared a Body for Our Savior? Whether you like it or not, that is how God did it. That being the case maybe you should ask God if He would move His mother out of the way so you wouldn't need her to have a relationship with Him. Snap! Jesus chose to need His Mother before you could have a relationship with Him..

Here are a few excerpts from the book The Glories of Mary written by St. Alphonsus Liguori. All quotations are taken from the chapter entitled "Mary Our Mediatrix".

• Mary, the most faithful mediatrix of salvation.
  
• She has been made the ladder to paradise, the gate to heaven, the most true mediatrix between God and human beings.
  
• No creature has since received any grace from God except through the hands of Mary.
  
• Are we then going to scruple to ask her to save us when (as St. Germanus says) no one is saved except through her?

[Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 969] Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.

Nice, isn't it? You may be right, except where is this in the Bible? Mary was assumed, made the mediatrix between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5-6), and has a role in our eternal salvation all because of what is recorded in John 2:5? That doesn't make any sense.

The Bible clearly states that the dead are unconscious (Ecclesiastes 9:5) and will not be conscious again until the resurrection (Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 20:4, 12). This rule applies to Mary, since the Bible does not indicate otherwise.

[John 3:13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Only the Law concerning the priesthood has been changed, according to the passage. The change was from the Levitical priesthood to the prophetic priesthood (the order of Melchizedek). Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, perfected in it. Those who are perfected in it (John 17:11, Romans 8:14) have no need of making sacrifices, because they do not sin (1 John 3:9). It is not that the mandates of the Torah have been done away with, but the law of sacrifice. The Levitical sacrificial laws were set in place as a penalty for breaking the Law. Those who are perfected in Christ, the renewed men (Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:23) have no need to make sacrifices because they don't break the Law, but obey the Law in spirit. This is what the new covenant was all about, to reestablish the old one into his people.

[Jeremiah 31:33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

[Hebrews 8:10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.

Well, I believe these two verses are talking to Israel. Right now Israel is not following the New Covenant. However, they will do so in the Millennium, though (After Christ returns).

Jesus clearly said that "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

The "Law and (or) the Prophets" (See Matthew 5:17). This is what Jesus came to fulfill. This is why Heaven and Earth has not passed away. He has yet to fulfill the "prophetic books" portion of the "Law and (or) the Prophets." Jesus is not going to return to fulfill more of the Law. Jesus already fulfilled the Old Law at calvary. Colossians says he nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us (See Colossians 2:14).

Jesus says,
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (Luke 16:16).

Why? Because Jesus was changing the Law even before the cross!

He changed the Old Law on: "An eye for an eye" by saying we are to now turn the other cheek.

John defines sin as transgression against the Law (1 John 3:4). If the Law has been done away with, then we have nothing to define sin.

John is talking about God's laws or commands in the New Testament and not the Old Testament.

Jesus was saying this to the Pharisees because they were accusing his disciples of breaking their tradition of washing their hands before eating. Any dirt that may have been on their food from their dirty hands touching it would have been cleaned out via digestion. He goes on to say

"But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and these defile the man. For out of the heart come forth wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, whorings, thefts, false witnessings, slanders. These defile the man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man"

One cannot eat meat without first murdering the animal, so putting what came from murder into your mouth is what defiles you. So clearly Jesus was not giving the green light for us to eat whatever we want.

Nowhere is there a command forbidding us to eat meat in the New Testament.

Jesus was clear that what enters you is not what defiles you. These are his own words that are indisputable. Paul drives home the point even more in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. Everything is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.

There is a similar passage from Mark 7:19: "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" The additional narrative where Jesus supposedly declared all foods clean is only found in the contemporary versions of the Bible. It is not found in the King James Bible or any of the Greek manuscripts. Some versions even say that he declared all meats clean. The narrative was clearly added to support the bias of the translators.

I believe the KJV to be the divinely inspired Word of God. So I get that Modern Translations add stuff. But the KJV still says, "whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;" (Matthew 7:18). These words are still true. They have to be. Yet, by what you said these words would not be true by Jesus.

In the KJV, "meat" had the meaning of "food" and "flesh" had the meaning of meat (e.g. Genesis 1:29 KJV). You need to consider that the meanings of words back in 1611 were different than in modern English. The passage uses G1033 βρωμάτων which means "food". Also, anyone who is sincere in obeying God's Law and/or abstaining from meat, like I do, do not have seared consciences or is forbidding marriage. Paul was referring to a certain faction of Essenes who were considering marriage to be a sin, because it was a carnal desire. Josephus talks about this a bit

This seems like an over inflated explanation that seeks to deny the plain words of Jesus in Matthew 7:18, etc. Jesus meant what He said. Nothing that enters you can defile you now (Under the New Covenant). This is the change in Law that Jesus made. Luke 16:16 says the Law and the Prophets was until John (i.e. John the Baptist).

Quoting myself from another thread:

I'm going to share with you a discussion I had with someone on ReligiousForums.com. This was his argument (quoting Galatians):

Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”

5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”

6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”

This was my response:

No, the Galatians passage says "All who depend on the works of the Law...." ἔργων (ergon) means "works" or "deeds" not "observance". What translation are you quoting from? Paul backs up his argument by quoting from Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.” Obviously one who depends on the works of the Law is one who is going through the motions—those only concerned about circumcision, dietary restrictions, Sabbath/Feast observances, ritual sacrifices, etc. and ignoring the more important things like loving your neighbor as yourself, thou shall not kill, etc. (that is not to say these are not important, but failing to adhere to the Law's wisdom is missing the point). Christ got onto the Pharisees about this, saying that they "ignore the weightier matters of the Law." (Matthew 23:23) and they "reject the commandments of God for their own tradition" (Mark 7:9). The Pharisees are an example of people who depend on the works of the Law, but those who obey the Law in full are the ones with the faith. Faith is defined as expecting that God will do as he promised in return for our full obedience. (see Hebrews 5:8-9) If you are circumcised but are disobedient, then your circumcision means nothing. Abraham was rewarded because he obeyed God, therefore the true covenant of Abraham is obedience. Circumcision is only an outward expression of it. If you consider the tone of language that Paul was using to write to the Galatians, you can tell that he was displeased with them and was telling them off for disobedience.

Paul never did away with the Law either. There is much evidence in scripture to prove this:

No. Paul said if you seek to be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing (Galatians 5:2). Galatians 5:2 means what it says. You cannot say that circumcision is necessary part of the obedience to the faith for salvation when Paul condemns it. Paul continues and says,

3 "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:3-4).

So Paul is saying here in verse 4 that if a believer seeks to be justified by the law (i.e. the Old Law), they have fallen from grace. Why? Because the Old Covenant Law is no more in effect. Paul mentions nothing in Galatians 5 about how we are still under the Old Law. Paul does not give us a command on circumcision after we are saved by God's grace. He says if you seek to be circumcised (obviously because one thinks it is necessary for salvation), then Christ will profit them nothing.

Paul always kept the Sabbath (Acts 17:1, Acts 18:4)

These verses do not say he always kept the Sabbath. Paul was merely in the Synagogue to evangelize the Jews. In other words, a believer can keep the Sabbath, but that does not mean it is requirement like it was under the Old Covenant Law.

Paul makes it clear that we are not to judge according to Sabbaths.

16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17).

If not keeping the Saturday Sabbath was a salvation issue (like it was in the Old Covenant), then we can judge others for not keeping the Sabbath. But seeing Paul says we are not to let any man judge us according to Sabbath keeping, this means the Sabbath is no longer a binding command under the New Covenant. In fact, no command is given to us to keep the Saturday Sabbath under the New Covenant.

Paul kept the Feasts (Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16)

Acts of the Apostles 20:6 does not say Paul kept the feast of unleavened bread. It merely says after the days of unleavened bread, Paul sailed away from Philippi to Troas.

As for Acts of the Apostles 20:16:

We have to be careful what Jewish encyclopedias say vs. what the Word of God says.

Remember, Jesus condemned the Jews for keeping their own traditions that were not specifically mentioned in God's Word.

Pentecost is defined in the Bible as birth of the church in Acts 2.

So Paul would naturally want to celebrate this event because of this reason.

Paul instructed us to keep the Feasts (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

I believe Paul is referring to the New Covenant Passover (i.e. the Lord's supper) in 1 Corinthians 5:8. It is not all that clear to make a case that it is specifically talking about how we must keep the Old Covenant Passover. Paul would have to say something like: Just as Moses kept the Passover, you are also to keep that same Passover as he did. But Paul does not say that. No command is given to us to keep the Old Covenant Passover. The Bible is clear that the Old Law is no more.

7 "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).

Paul believed all of the Torah (Acts 24:14)

At the Jerusalem counsel, James quotes a commissioned letter of the church that said,

"Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" (Acts of the Apostles 15:24).

When Paul said that he believed in the law and the prophets in Acts of the Apostles 24:14, he was talking about how he believed how the Old Covenant led to the New Covenant. Nowhere does it say that he kept the Old Law and that we should, too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Paul stated that we establish the Torah (Romans 3:31)

Paul is talking about how we are to serve in newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7:6). Paul is talking about God's laws today under the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant.

Paul taught from the Torah (Acts 28:23)

Persuading them of Jesus by expounding upon the Law of Moses is not the same as saying that they needed to keep the Law of Moses. The law was a school master to bring us unto Christ. "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:25).

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead
to the law by the body of Christ; " (Romans 7:4).

"But now we are delivered from the law," (Romans 7:6).

Paul obeyed the Torah (Acts 21:24, Romans 7:25)
Paul took delight in the Torah (Romans 7:22)
Paul said the Torah is holy (Romans 7:12)
Paul said the Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14)

Acts of the Apostles 21:24 is talking about an evangelization tactic for Israelite believers so as to win over the Jews.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."
(Acts of the Apostles 21:20-26).

Please take note that the Gentiles in verse 25 were not commanded to observe such Jewish customs or things. The commands to Gentiles was different.

But again, Paul makes it clear that if we seek to be justified by the Law, we have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). So obeying the Old Law as a part of salvation means one would be fallen from grace by doing so. So the Jewish believers who were told to observe the Old Law were not doing these things to be saved. They merely did this so as to gain the Jews.

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;" (1 Corinthians 9:20).

As for your mention of Romans 7:22, Romans 7:12, Romans 7:14:

Well, in Romans 7:14-24:
Paul is talking from his perspective as a Pharisee when he was under the Law before he met Jesus Christ. Paul talked about how he could not overcome sin while trying to be justified by trying to keep the Old Law alone under the false Pharisee religion.

Romans 8:2-4 talks about how a New Covenant law called: "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" has made him free from the Old Law of "sin and death." The Old Law is called the "Law of sin and death" because you could face capital punishment by God's people for breaking certain laws (within the Law of Moses). Such is not the case under the New Covenant today. For we do not go around stoning believers for breaking God's laws. Verse 3 says what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh (See Paul's struggle as a Pharisee in Romans 7:14-24) God sent the Son (Jesus) to condemn sin in the flesh to offer man the free gift of salvation, so that the righteous aspect of part of the Old Law can be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:2-4).

The righteous aspect of part of the Old Law (the Moral Law) is fulfilled by us loving our neighbor (See Romans 13:8-10). But we first must put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ so as not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh (See Romans 13:14).

As for Romans 7:25:

The Good News Translation (GNT) says this.

"Thanks be to God, who does this through our Lord Jesus Christ! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God's law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin." (Romans 7:25) (GNT).

In other words, Paul says that on his own without Jesus Christ, he will try and serve God's law in his mind but his body will still struggle with sin. This is because as a Pharisee, he did not yet put on the Lord Jesus Christ so as not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Romans 13:14).

Paul said not to judge anyone observing the Torah (Colossians 2:16-17)

I have no problem in anyone observing the Sabbaths or holy days. The problem is when they say it is a salvation issue. Paul is clear that if we seek to be justified by the Old Law, we have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).

Paul said that doers of the Torah are justified (Romans 2:13)

Paul was making a point of how only those who can keep God's laws are justified.

But Paul says we are dead to the Old Law.

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; " (Romans 7:4).

Paul says we are delivered from the Old Law.

"But now we are delivered from the law,..." (Romans 7:6).

Paul said teachers who break the Torah dishonor Yahweh and blaspheme His name (Romans 2:21-24)

The Moral Law, like "do not steal," "do not commit adultery," etc. are laws or commands that are repeated or given to us under the New Covenant. Paul draws on the moral law to make a point. The point is that we cannot seek to be saved by Law alone or the Old Law.

"for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21).

Paul said we learn what sin is from the Torah (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7)
Paul taught that being under grace is not a license to break the Torah (Romans 6:15)

In Romans 3:20, I believe Paul is talking generically of the Law (through out all of time). Paul's point is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God so they need a Savior like Jesus to wipe the slate clean so they can walk uprightly by following the commands given to them by Jesus and His followers.

In Romans 7:7, Paul is pointing out how while the Old Law is not sinful (because you can still obey it), He is stressing the keeping of the Moral aspect of the Law here (like, "Do not murder," "Do not covet," etc.) and not the ceremonial laws (Like the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, and the dietary laws, etc.) that are no more binding for believers under the New Covenant.

As for Romans 6:15:
Well, Romans 6:15 says,
"What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

Now, you believe we are under the Law. But Paul says we are not under the Old Law by saying, shall we sin because we are not under the Law? Paul is obviously talking about breaking the Moral Law under the New Covenant when it comes to his reference of "sin" here and he is referencing how we are not under the Old Covenant Law (as a whole) when he says the words "we are not under the law." For Romans 7:6 says we are to serve in NEWNESS Spirit and NOT in the oldness of the letter. We obviously cannot break God's laws and still say we know the Lord (1 John 2:4) who is the source of our salvation (1 John 5:12).