If Mary was sinless?

[thereselittleflower]

Exd 25:17 "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide.
Exd 25:18 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat.
Exd 25:19 "Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim {of one piece} with the mercy seat at its two ends.
Exd 25:20 "The cherubim shall have {their} wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be {turned} toward the mercy seat.
Exd 25:21 "You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you.
Exd 25:22 "There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.

IMHO, it is an abuse of the above scripture to use it to support the use of statues and icons as they are made these days. God commanded the cherubim be on His mercy seat because He was giving the pattern - the pattern being after the throne in heaven.
NO ONE kneeled to the cherubim or prayed to the cherubim. Instead, it was the Shekinah Glory -God Almighty Himself- that hovered over the mercy seat that caused awe and fear. It was God alone who was prayed to.

And in giving the order to make those cherubim, God didn't recind His commandments.

Thank you for sharing yoir opinion.


Peace

 

[ThreeAM]

Responding in general to the thread:

I don't see any "killing the messenger" from the Catholic side going on . .

I do see quite a bit of necessary clearing out of straw and other nonconstructive offerings cluttering the room so we can deal with the real issues . . but it just keeps building up as fast as we try to clear it out . .

The real issues are what need to be focused on. . but as long as strawman arguments, such as Mary is a god as far as Catholics are concerend, or like sinlessness = omniscience, keep getting offered by various posters randomly throughou the thread, it gets very hard to have any type of constructive discussion.



When people are more interested in the real issues rather than erecting strawman and other logical fallacies, maybe we can have an actual constructive discussion . until then, I don't see how. . .


Peace

Perhaps if you remove the beam from your eyes you might be better able to see.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Pressumes facts not in evidence

I have never discussed this issue on any foum prior to this thread.

LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAWMAN

My post did not say you discussed this issue on any forum prior to this thread

You have simply substituted this false issue for what I actually said in my post.

Would you like to address what my post actually said?

Actually, I was asking you questions, not stating anything. Clarifying questions are not logically false statements.


Here it is again - let me rephrase just a little to make it clearer:

So, may I clarify? Is the purpose of your question to gain information so you can better understand our faith, or so you can initiate yet another of the many debates on the same question ?

Doesn't that presume you already have an answer in mind and are ready to attack it in debate?

​

You were invited more than once to OBOB to have questions answered, an invitation which you declined because you wanted to debate the issue .. so I sought to clarify.


Would you like to help bring clarity to your words here in this thread by answering?

STRAWMAN and not the topic of the OP so needs no response.

Want to get back on topic TLF ?

Hardly.

You brought up a requirement that needed to be examined for its validty.

I did so in my post.

I demonstrated clearly how your requriement, which YOU brought up, is INVALID.

This is obviously not a strawman in any way shape or form.

Mislabeling my argument as a logical fallacy is simply a dismissive response regarding my argument wthout ever dealing with the fact I have demonstrated your requirement of Catholics to belogically invalid.

When you are ready to deal with my actual argument and how it demonstrates your requirement of a particular level of evidence from Catolics is invalid, then let's continue .


Until then, may I suggest spending some time familiariizing yourself with strawman fallacies so you might avoid misidentifying them in the future?

That might be very helpful I believe.


As far as getting back on topic, are you willing to drop your requirement that we provide scripture which SAY Mary was sinless?



Peace

 

[FreeinChrist]

Huh??? You get that out of that Scripture? Uh, sorry but I don't. And it is the seed of the woman (Jesus), Eve, that crushes Satan's head, not Mary. And the woman in Revelation is Israel, not Mary, the twelve stars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Then you would be wrong...again.

Which is why I asked rather than presume to know.


Peace

 

[Benedicta00]

IMHO, it is an abuse of the above scripture to use it to support the use of statues and icons as they are made these days.

In my opinion it’s not. I'm not using in support of Catholic icons and statues, although I can because a Catholic Church is the same thing that Exodus describes just about.

I don’t see any Protestant churches looking anything like what God asked his house of worship to look like.

I’m using it because Christ said specifically that God asked for no image to be made of anything that is in heaven.

Chris said, God said not to make an image of anything in heaven but yet in the same book he gave that supposed command, he turns around and asks for just that, an image of something in heaven.

So Chris needs to rethink this because God does not contradict himself that way.

 

[Benedicta00]

Huh??? You get that out of that Scripture? Uh, sorry but I don't. And it is the seed of the woman (Jesus), Eve, that crushes Satan's head, not Mary. And the woman in Revelation is Israel, not Mary, the twelve stars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.

Well, that's your interpretation.

 

[FreeinChrist]

In my opinion it’s not. I'm not using in support of Catholic icons and statues, although I can because a Catholic Church is the same thing that Exodus describes just about.

I don’t see any Protestant churches looking anything like what God asked his house of worship to look like.

No, because the Tabernacle was for the Old Covenant.

I’m using it because Christ said specifically that God asked for no image to be made of anything that is in heaven.

Chris said, God said not to make an image of anything in heaven but yet in the same book he gave that supposed command, he turns around and asks for just that, an image of something in heaven.


So Chris needs to rethink this because God does not contradict himself that way.

I disagree. God commanded it for a specific reason.
The cherubim were not worshipped in any way - not kneeled to or prayed to. It was all about God as He was the one that was on the mercy seat. He is revealing Himself to the Israelites.

 

[Benedicta00]

No, because the Tabernacle was for the Old Covenant.

and the tabernacle in the Catholic Church is for the new.

I disagree. God commanded it for a specific reason.

Which was?

The cherubim were not worshipped in any way -

Never said they were.

BTW, in case you were implying, neither are icons and statue worshiped in a catholic Church. Only God is.

not kneeled to or prayed to.

So?

It was all about God as He was the one that was on the mercy seat. He is revealing Himself to the Israelites.

EXACTLY what Holy Mass is.

 

[ThreeAM]

LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAWMAN

My post did not say you discussed this issue on any forum prior to this thread

You have simply substituted this false issue for what I actually said in my post.

Would you like to address what my post actually said?

Actually, I was asking you questions, not stating anything. Clarifying questions are not logically false statements.




Here it is again - let me rephrase just a little to make it clearer:

So, may I clarify? Is the purpose of your question to gain information so you can better understand our faith, or so you can initiate yet another of the many debates on the same question ?

Doesn't that presume you already have an answer in mind and are ready to attack it in debate?



​

You were invited more than once to OBOB to have questions answered, an invitation which you declined because you wanted to debate the issue .. so I sought to clarify.

Well I only noticed one invitation to OBOB but perhaps you noticed other invites. The bottom line is I am interested in a two way discussion of Catholic beliefs and I doubt I would be interested in the format in the OBOB. I would rather discuss than be preached to but that is just me.

Would you like to help bring clarity to your words here in this thread by answering?





Hardly.

You brought up a requirement that needed to be examined for its validty.

I did so in my post.

I demonstrated clearly how your requriement, which YOU brought up, is INVALID.

This is obviously not a strawman in any way shape or form.

Mislabeling my argument as a logical fallacy is simply a dismissive response regarding my argument wthout ever dealing with the fact I have demonstrated your requirement of Catholics to belogically invalid.

When you are ready to deal with my actual argument and how it demonstrates your requirement of a particular level of evidence from Catolics is invalid, then let's continue .


Until then, may I suggest spending some time familiariizing yourself with strawman fallacies so you might avoid misidentifying them in the future?

That might be very helpful I believe.


As far as getting back on topic, are you willing to drop your requirement that we provide scripture which SAY Mary was sinless?



Peace

Just another Strawman and not part of the OP.

 

[stone]

aside from all ya'lls blah blah blah, i'll say that Mary is sinless. I'm not sure about when she was here on earth, the flesh is weak.

 

[Benedicta00]

aside from all ya'lls blah blah blah, i'll say that Mary is sinless. I'm not sure about when she was here on earth, the flesh is weak.

Right, the flesh is weak which is why God created his mother to be free from sin. If she were weak how could she have said yes then?

And where do we see her actually being weak? I see where the apostles spased out all the time but no, not Mary.

 

[FreeinChrist]

and the tabernacle in the Catholic Church is for the new.

No, the tabernacle in heaven is for the New Covenant.
Christ is sitting at the right hand of God as our High Priest and Interecessor:

Hbr 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,


Hbr 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;

Hbr 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Hbr 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.
Hbr 4:16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.


The Old Covenant beleivers had to have an earthly temple and repeated sacrifices. We can, through the Holy Spirit, approach the heavenly throne. We can do this because Jesus was the better Mediator of a better covenant based on better promises and made with a better sacrifice (once for all) that was offerred at a better temple (heavenly) by the better Priest,who holds His Priesthood forever and and is always interceding for us. (Hebrews in a nutshell)

Which was?

It was all a part of showing who God is, where His throne is...and it all pointed to Christ. And because we know that chrubs covered the throne, we know how far Lucifer (the covering cherub) fell...and that he was just an angel - not God like Jesus Christ. Everything about the Tabernacle revealed God the Father, god the Son or God the Holy Spirit. Consider the Holy place. You walk in and on the right is the table of shewbread - Jesus said He is the bread of life. On the left is the 7 candled oil lamp - thnk of the 'sevenfold Spirit of God'. And then God the Father on the mercy seat.

Never said they were.

BTW, in case you were implying, neither are icons and statue worshiped in a catholic Church. Only God is.

So when a friend of mine tried to get me to buy a 24 carat gold charm of the Virgin Mary with the promise that if I hold it when I pray to her, she will grant my prayer...and that 24 carat gold works better than 18....that isn't worship? In my book it is.

So?

So???

EXACTLY what Holy Mass is.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[Benedicta00]

Thank you for your opinion.

This is not my opinion, it is what Mass is.

 

[FreeinChrist]

This is not my opinion, it is what Mass is.

That is your opinon - IMHO .

I believe that God has already revealed Himself through the Son and His death and resurrection, and through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Benedicta00]

That is your opinon - IMHO .

I believe that God has already revealed Himself through the Son and His death and resurrection, and through the Holy Spirit.

No, the Church tells us this is what Mass is. No opinions involved here. Are you saying that this is not what the Church teaches Mass is?

 

[stone]

Right, the flesh is weak which is why God created his mother to be free from sin. If she were weak how could she have said yes then?

And where do we see her actually being weak? I see where the apostles spased out all the time but no, not Mary.

well... i never said she was, but she was human and she is jewish and well... what more is there to say.

 

[Benedicta00]

well... i never said she was, but she was human and she is jewish and well... what more is there to say.

Yeah, she was Jewish and human. So was Jesus. Ya’ point?

If you are sinless, then are you sub-human? Weren’t Adam and Eve sinless?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well I only noticed one invitation to OBOB but perhaps you noticed other invites. The bottom line is I am interested in a two way discussion of Catholic beliefs and I doubt I would be interested in the format in the OBOB. I would rather discuss than be preached to but that is just me.

I can understand wanting to have a 2 way comversation.

May I ask for clarification, what is it you hope to acheive in the end?

Just another Strawman and not part of the OP.

And this is simply another

LOGICAL FALLACY - Non-Sequitur . . the conclusion does nto follow.

I am sorry, but if you persist in attempting to invalidate a rational and logical response that someone takes time to make to you and which is responsive to what you posted, why should any of us spend time discussing this when we can't get past first base as to what is a rational and logical argument?

As interested as you might be in having a 2 way discussion with us, given how you are dealing with our legitimate responses to you, the water is not very inviting.


Your refusal to deal with my response to you in any logically valid way does not bode well for future discussoin on this topic.




Peace

 

[vrunca]

well... i never said she was, but she was human and she is jewish and well... what more is there to say.

There's a lot more to say...she was Jesus' mom! When the Apostle's were too afraid to be with Jesus during the walk to the crucifixion, she was there! She wasn't afraid, she stayed right with Him until the end. And she said yes to God! There is just so much more to say too!!!