Catholic Christian
Well-Known Member
- May 12, 2007
- 3,948
- 185
- 63
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just out of curiousity, if Mary "was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin" (Immaculate Conception), why did it take 1,854 years after the birth of Jesus before anyone realized this? How come the Catholic church did not recognize this fact until 1854 AD? It wasnt until Pope Pius IX uttered those words on December 8, 1854, that this doctrine was issued.
Because they couldn't muster enough votes to push the deal through.
The idea that Mary is the "new ark" is nonsense. It may be old (it is certainly decayed) but it is not apostolic or biblical.If the apology I offered in my post # 916 is so inconsistently weak then why have you not dealt with any of the implicitly biblical evidence I offered?? The types of Mary I mentioned didn't seem inconsistent to the early Christians(Centuries 1-7) nor did her sinlessness in root form. Original sin does not hinder her Immaculate Conception because the official Catholic dogma states that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin as a gift from her divine son.You reply to my strong biblical and historical apology is no reply at all but rather a boohoo from a disenchanted protestant outlook that can't handle a solid Catholic biblical response.
Sure they did.quote=Athanasias;The Catholic church did not make Mary into a demi-God.
Giving someone honor that belongs to God is wrong.She is given honor because of her position she holds biblically. There is nothing wrong with giving someone honor.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary did have a savior, Jesus Christ, but there are two ways to be saved.
Not the same way at all.Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to dis-obey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Lukes gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way.
Developed?? From what?? Who developed it except Jesus Christ that it should be accepted as gospel; something that was Holy Spirit given when He didn't give it??Because doctrine develops by the power of the Holy Spirit.(Just like the doctrine of the Trinity did)
We don't vote on truth. Thats you guys' game.Because they couldn't muster enough votes to push the deal through.
It took 300 years to fully develop the doctrine of the Trinity. Do you deny the Trinity based on that? Thats how the mind of the Church works as She is led deeper into the mysteries of God's word.Developed?? From what?? ...
The idea that Mary is the "new ark" is nonsense. It may be old (it is certainly decayed) but it is not apostolic or biblical.
Well said. Luke draws too much "ark" language into his chapters on Mary for it to mean anything elseI guess then that you would dissagree with the Gospel writers Luke and John as they both displayed Mary as Ark of the new covenant in scripture as I listed in my post. You simply do not have a good answer so you must deny even the solid biblical typological evidence.
It took 300 years to fully develop the doctrine of the Trinity. Do you deny the Trinity based on that? Thats how the mind of the Church works as She is led deeper into the mysteries of God's word.
Pease, my sides are splitting. Mind of the church?? How about the Mind God that has gone ignored for two thousand years
The mind of God is at one with the mind of his Church who is his spokesperson......."He who hears you hears me but he who rejects you rejects me"(LK 10:16)... "whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"(Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:15-19).
Not hardly can it be spoken of any organised church on this planet. Wait up.
No, they did not. Your typologies are rubbish.I guess then that you would dissagree with the Gospel writers Luke and John as they both displayed Mary as Ark of the new covenant in scripture as I listed in my post. You simply do not have a good answer so you must deny even the solid biblical typological evidence.
So I guess the apostles did not have a organized church?
Are you saying that one man - you - know the Mind of the Almighty Eternal God? Now MY sides are splitting.Pease, my sides are splitting. Mind of the church?? How about the Mind God that has gone ignored for two thousand years by the mind of the church?
No, they did not. Your typologies are rubbish.
The references to Mary being the "new ark" exist only in your head, sorry.Again you ignore the clear biblical references that Luke and John made and that even the early Christians saw from scripture relating Mary to the Ark of the covenant. It is easy to see who is teaching consistent historical biblical apostolic truth and who is teaching the novel heresy. You cannot even nor have you tried to refute the passages from Luke and John that I sited all you can say is no your wrong. I guess you simply dissagree with Luke, John, and Jesus historical Church for 2000 years. Sad!You simply do not have a leg to stand on on this issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?