Episcopal Church Ousts Pittsburgh Bishop

Prophet »

Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

It's interesting that msnchris will quote Luther when it suits him, but will call him a heretic for leaving the Catholic Church. Why doesn't he quote all the things that Luther said against the RCC?

wbmoore »

Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I'm a guy. I'm glad they helped.

argyle86 »

Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Noproblem wbmoore, and and thank you, I found a lot of answers to questions i had to myself on your page that i didnt even realize had and already knew the answer to. I guess what i maen is some of ur readings helped reinforce some areas of faith iv been haveing trouble with of late. Good stuff man(or woman, i only know you from your posts)

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32

igh »

Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

What are the Characteristics of a cult? This is a post i have been wanting to make.

1. Unswerving loyalty to the pope and his church. (questions are discouraged, fear of ex-communication and subsequent damnation)
2. Believe that the bread and wine are Truely Christ's body and blood or be excommunicated. (fear of damnation)
3. Do not question the pope's authority. (Charismatic leader above question no matter what he says or does.)
4. Whatever the pope says on Scripture is infallible. (God like leader, demands complete obedience.)
5. Confession of sins to only a priest.(no confession to Christ. Information can be used agaisnt you, fear tactics, blackmail.)
6. Belief your sins are not paid by Christ, you must continue to take mass, and pray for those in pergatory. (control over the 'flock' also monetary gains.)
7. Mass is mandatory for forgiveness of sins. (more control)
8. Holding to the belief 'your church is the only way to God." (hatred of those 'outsiders,' more control.)
9. Only a catholic priest can give the bread and wine.
10. All are heretics outside the catholic church.
11. Chanting the rosary. (mind control)
12. Only be a priest if celebate. (control)
13. Doctrinal control. Saying mass in latin, in former times you were not allowed to even read the Bible.

Here are some links that describe cults. Run your own search.

http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-cult-definition.html

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1341

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm

http://www.letusreason.org/culteac.htm

http://www.icsahome.com/idx_grp.asp

wbmoore »

Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

thanks argyle86.

wbmoore »

Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I fixed the link
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/peter-and-the-rock-2/
Sorry.

believer »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chris, the reason I quote these men is because they are catholics not because I necessarily agree with their theology.

argyle86 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

wbmoore, that link didnt work for me but i saw the link on the page i think you ment to post.
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/what-rock-did-jesus-build-his-church-upon/

by the way, kudos on that artical. I think ill check out your other stuff as well.

wbmoore »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

msnChris70,

I was going to make a response showing how you are wrong about Matthew. and Peter, but I do not want to take up so much space here.
Go here.
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/peter-and-the-rock-2/

Online4Him »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:38 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts (2Corinthians 1:22).

Again this chapter is addressing the whole church.

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13).

Again this chapter is addressing the whole church.

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30).

Again this chapter is addressing the whole church.

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is HE that is IN YOU, than he that is in the world (1John 4:4).

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell IN YOU. Now if ANY MAN HAVE NOT the SPIRIT of CHRIST, he is none of his (Romans 8:9).

But the ANOINTING which ye HAVE received of him ABIDETH IN YOU, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same ANOINTING TEACHETH YOU of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, YE shall abide IN HIM (1John 2:27).

So, scripture clearly speaks against your claim that only the hierarchy are led by the Holy Spirit.

Online4Him »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:37 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

msn,

I do know that; however, saying it and actually believing it are two different things. To make claims that the Word of God does not make is to stand on shifting sand. For example, you would have us believe that Mary was without sin, that she is Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix . . . . despite all these being contrary to scripture. WHERE ARE THE VERSES my friend?

The Church:

A couple of things regarding your post; first, you said, (Moreover, no where in the sacred scriptures did God leave a Church to the Apostles where everyone could discern for themselves and interpret the Word of God. The Word of God was always interpretate by God's chosen hiearchy,)


And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified (Acts 20:32).


This passage gives us an understanding of what Paul was doing on his missionary journeys; he was not only encouraging the saints but he also commended them to WHOM? Notice he does NOT say I commend you to the bishop of Rome (the pope), or to the hierarchy of the church; but he says I commend you to GOD and the WORD of his grace.

And you also said, (You were not promised the gift of the Truth by the Holy Spirit as this was given to Peter and Peter's successors only.)

Another misunderstanding that you have is the belief that only the hierarchy possesses the Holy Spirit. This may be the reason why Catholics as a whole are so dependent upon intermediaries beginning with the priest and a myriad of saints. This belief is unbiblical; read the following passages:

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (Ephesians 5:18).

The entire chapter is being address to the entire church: verse 1 (Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children).

igh »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The point was perfectly laid out by God in the Bible. I agree that man is depraved. Now smooth words dont work on me, only the Truth. The catholic church is depraved, showing the baseness of man. How can anyone of good conscience accept the doctrines of rome? I cannot, and looking at her history I cannot go to my Lord Jesus and say " This is your Church you founded and built."

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Igh,

A follower of Jack Chick you are?? Now, that makes total sense. I've never met anyone who reads this gentleman's literature to be motivated by Truth or Reason. Theology taught by comic strips. Hmm.

Read any other good comics?

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

IGH,

Your inability to create workable analogies is paramount.
Half the time no one could tell what comparison you are making.

While I rarely agree with Prophet or Online, and agree sometimes with Believer it would be helpful if your writings were more cogent. These other gentlemen write cogently, which is always appreciated.

Let's reduce your discussions to one point at a time, so I can respectfully respond to you. I'm sure this will benefit all those who wish to read our remarks and reflections. Thanks.

igh »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Here's some good info from Chick Tracks. Read all the chapters.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_01.asp

here is a link to Jack Chick's trak on the "Death Cookie."

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

This continued division with Protestants to create one unity of Christians as it was before your founders left the Church founded by Christ, is a difficult one.

It is difficult, because ALL Christians can agree that no belief can fall contrary to the WORD OF GOD, but it is our interpretations of those same verses which conflict.

With those Protestants that have a historical background back to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox and Henry VIIIth we have much in agreement. With those sects that have come from these and others that were founded by a combination of former denominations their interpretations continue to create distance between the Original Church primarily because of their lack of historical continuity.

When you look at history from a lense that was there in the beginning and that lense has continued to pass down these images from the very beginning it is much easier to discern the original Truth of the verses in Scripture. When your lense cannot see that far back because there was no one there from your church to take that picture it is no wonder why these new images bare little resemblance to authentic Christian worship, theology and understanding given by the Apostles.

You see, when you reject the early witness that was widely accepted as orthodox and officially accepted by the hiearchy of the Church and passed down through the Bishops of the Church, you have basically sepparated yourself from the Rock foundation that Christ supports. The Church, which has the authority and sacraments of God, was given as a gift to ensure the People of God would seek to know and love God and accept Jesus Christ as their savior.

It is time for all those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, to come home to the fullness of Truth as revealed in His Holy Catholic church.

igh »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

You see msnchris, that man is depraved and wicked. Even the early Kings had many problems, many went astray and worshipped Idols, sacrificed there own children, and turned from God unto such evil that we can only guess at its depths.

These Kings were led astray by enticing words and by marrying strange women. They whorred after the things of the pagans, the very ones God had ordered destroyed. This influence is still around today. It invaded the church in rome long ago and now sits disguised.

igh »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

2Ki 21:1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah.
2Ki 21:2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, after the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
2Ki 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.
2Ki 21:4 And he built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD said, In Jerusalem will I put my name.
2Ki 21:5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD.
2Ki 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2Ki 21:7 And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house, of which the LORD said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Augustine on The Rock / Papacy of St. Peter
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51
“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

Pretty conclusive how Augustine felt.

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Believer,

When St. Augustine was young he might of well said something like this, but as Bishop of Antioch let's see what he had to say.

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

I do find it rather odd, that you reject so much of Augustine and yet try to agree with him when initially you think it is convenient. Here are more statements about how Augustine knows that PETER IS THE ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT.

What say you?

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Believer, how about these quotes from St. John Chrysostom.
Your quotes do not negate Peter being the Rock that the Church is built upon.

In the first place, let us note St. Chrysostom's habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

"This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation." (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])

We shall meet presently with many more passages of the same kind. In the doubtfully genuine homily of SS. Peter and Elias (vol II, 727[731]) we find:

"Peter was to be entrusted with the keys of the church, or, rather, he was entrusted with the keys of heaven, and he was to be entrusted with the multitude of the people....That Peter the head of the apostles, the unshaken foundation, the unbroken rock, the first in the Church, the unconquerable port, the unshaken tower...he who was to be entrusted with the Church, the pillar of the Church, the port of the faith, Peter, the teacher of the whole world...Peter, that column, that bulwark."

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Online,

The word of man can never supercede or work contrary to the Word of God. You know that!

I am simply pointing out others who hold to the same interpretation of Scripture as I do and these men were key to the Reformation. Remember, you and I can look at many parts of scripture and agree or disagree.
What you simply do not get, is that we are not arguing what the scripture says we are infact arguing who's interpretation is correct. I can affirm every scripture verse in the Bible. I just can't affirm your interpretation of it, and that is the divide. Moreover, no where in the sacred scriptures did God leave a Church to the Apostles where everyone could discern for themselves and interpret the Word of God. The Word of God was always interpretate by God's chosen hiearchy, Peter and the Apostles in communion with him. Today, the bishop of Rome and the Bishops in communion with him. Much like the Old Covenant and the "Seat of Moses", we have the "seat of Peter" in the New.

The Word of God, only interpreted by yourself, is a unbiblical practice. You were not promised the gift of the Truth by the Holy Spirit as this was given to Peter and Peter's successors only. You must interpret scripture according to the SACRED TRADITION of the Church. What is that Sacred Tradition? It is the fact that our church was there when the Apostles preached. Our Bishops were the ones who were discipled by the Apostles and so on and so on.

Your sect of Christianity gets it wrong because you have ZERO connection to the original Church. You are an offshoot of an offshoot of a division of a division. Simply stated; your Christian sect has a highly watered down Gospel because you do not hold FAST to the SACRED TRADITIONS that Paul and other Apostles handed down. These Traditions were given by God to these Apostles and passed down. You reject Sacred Tradition, because your group of Christians have no connection to the original. I would reject historical narratives too if my church was only started in the last few hundred years.

You see, Sacred Tradition, unlike human man made tradition is the window in which we look through to understand what they exactly meant by the scriptures.

Without the window to the past and a Real connection to the Apostles, you are severely handicapped and your interpretation of scripture is reduced to guessing.

Online4Him »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Sigh . . . . I do not understand why some people continue to elevate the words of men ABOVE the WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD?

believer »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

chris, John Chrysostom and Augustine wrote "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock(petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built." (Augustine, "On the Gospel of John" Tractate 12435, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I, 7:450)

believer »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:24 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

chris, Aquinas declared that the immaculate conception of Mary is impossible (Summa Theologica, 3,27,2), since Mary, like all other humans except Christ, inherited a sin nature from Adam.

igh »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

msnchris70 said:

"So, In the language that Jesus spoke, since He did not speak in Greek, it is "YOU ARE KEPHA AND ON THIS KEPHA I will build my church." Also, Jesus said this to Peter in front of a gigantic Rock emphasizing how God will build His Church on the authority of one person, not something that could decay in the future."


Jesus said it was his Church and that He would build it. Period.
I don't understand how you can attribute the Authority, Power, and Wisdom of God to one man.

Scripture is clear, that God does this job not man.

Now when man takes on himself the role of God he is an usurper, anti-christ, and blasphemer.
He most certainly is not following God but his belly. Lusting for power and the praises of man instead of the praises of God.

Peter was a man chosen by God as were all the Apostels, even Judas who betrayed our Lord. All they were to do was decided upon before the foundation of the world.
Do not think those who truely serve God cannot approach anyone who says they do and correct them on Doctrine. The pope is not over me on this, i can go face to face with him on Doctrine and he must listen or be considered Anathema.

My skills in the Holy Ghost as well as those of my Brethren were chosen before the world began, Gifts are given by the Spirit of God, not by man.

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Gal 1:5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

I would suggest spending some time at:

www.catholic.com for more information.

I also think it would be helpful to go to www.catholicnewsagency.com to see how the Catholic Church affects the World in News.

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

Wbmoore,

A little more info a Peter as the Rock. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. Your argument doesn't work and shows a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

The men below were the top of the top of Protesant Reformers and yet they held to positions on Mary, that their denominations reject today. Now did their denominations reject them immediately after the death of their founder????

NOPE!!! Their denominations continued these beliefs and only in the last 100 years have their denominations and their subsequent divisions from the main denomination rejected these beliefs about Mary.

All you can assume is that, as time goes on and as Protestants continue to divide they continue to lose so much of the original faith. They continue to water down the original apostolic faith to where we have offshoots of Protestantism like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons who are not even Christian.

Come home to the Rock, where the Holy Spirit was promised to lead that Rock into All Truth.

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

The great protestant reformers affirmed their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity:

German reformer Martin Luther's (1483-1546) writings often address the subject of Mary: On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, he wrote
In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
Luther, true to Catholic tradition, wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
On the perpetual virginity of Mary, "Calvin routinely brushes aside the difficulties sometimes raised from "first born" and "brothers of the Lord."" (O'Carroll, M., 1983, Theotokos, M Glazier, Inc.: Wilmington, DE, p. 94.)
The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), wrote, on the divine motherhood of Mary:
It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 6, I, p. 639.)
On the perpetual virginity of Mary, Zwingli wrote,
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
In another place Zwingli professed
I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary ...; Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin. (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)
The more the honor and love for Christ grows among men, the more esteem and honor for Mary grows, for she brought forth for us so great, but so compassionate a Lord and Redeemer. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, pp. 427-428.)

msnchris70 »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Wbmoore,

Sorry to shake your ground, but this gospel was written in Greek, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic and Hebrew. Also, many times the Hebrew was used for Peter(Cephas). Cephas which has no male or female gender means "Rock".

So, In the language that Jesus spoke, since He did not speak in Greek, it is "YOU ARE KEPHA AND ON THIS KEPHA I will build my church." Also, Jesus said this to Peter in front of a gigantic Rock emphasizing how God will build His Church on the authority of one person, not something that could decay in the future.

I'm sorry my friend, but translating things are important especially when you use the right language. Moreover, Petros is just the male version. Hebrew and Aramaic do not have male or female gender for rock. You can't call Petros, Petra when that would be incorrect since he is male. The greek translation is merely calling him the proper gender of an object. Again, they didn't call him Peter, they calleded him Shimon Kepha.

Also, Jesus is the Rock and gave powers to Simon Peter or Shimon Kepha. Jesus said the YOU ARE THE ROCK. Can't be any more obvious than that. Also, now that most Protestant scholars actually realize that Jesus didn't speak greek, it kind of blows their whole understanding of this away. They are still dealing with the ramifications of the fact that Peter is the Rock and Jesus gave him this name and it is a big deal. Moreover, if it was only Peter's statement of faith, then why call him Kepha??? They call him Kepha because it was not just his statement of faith, he is the one who is rock.

Think how illogical your position is. If your translation is wrong because you thought Jesus was speaking in Greek, how many other things do you have wrong?

wbmoore »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The ROCK is GOD.
Psalm 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

Psalm 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD ? And who is the Rock except our God?

And Christ is God. To believe otherwise is to ignore Scripture.

wbmoore »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:04 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

msnChris70,

"Moreover, we also know when God changes a person's name like Abraham, it denotes a mission with the name."

Actually, a name change by God DOES indicate a change, but not necessarily in mission. For instance, Hosea 1:6-8, where Hosea's daughter was named "Not-pitied" and his son was named "Not-my-people," which indicated Israel's status with God because of their unfaithfulness. But in Hosea 2:1, 23 the names were changed to "My-people" and "She-was-pitied," not to indicate a change in mission, but a change in heart - in this case God's, and a promise of God's forgiveness and mercy.

In the same way, the change of Simon's name to Peter was also a promise to God's people. Peter, who was blessed by God to know that Jesus was the Christ, would be a rock of God's temple, built upon the Rock who is Christ. In the same way, people who know Jesus as Christ are rocks in the temple of God.

Acts 4:8-12
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. HE IS THE STONE YOU BUILDERS REJECTED, WHICH HAS BECOME THE CAPSTONE. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of GOD'S HOUSEHOLD, 20 BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, WITH CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF AS THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Revelation 21:10-14
10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper. 12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west. 14 And THE WALL OF THE CITY HAD TWELVE FOUNDATION STONES, AND ON THEM WERE THE TWELVE NAMES OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LAMB.

Jesus is the Rock, the capstone. Peter, along with the other apostles and the prophets were the foundational stones built upon that capstone. But Peter was not THE Rock, simply a rock.

wbmoore »

Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

msnChris70,

"The Church that Jesus founded His Church is on SHIMON KEPHAS or Simon Peter."

No.

Matthew 16:15-19
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD BY CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The word translated as Peter is petros, and means stone, or rock. However, the word translated as rock is petra, like the rocks of a cliff, or a strong rock upon which a foundation is built. This is easily seen in another place Jesus used the term rock. We see the term 'petra' is used by Jesus in Matthew 7:24-27,
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Here Jesus was speaking of rock (petra) as a foundation, solid rock. This is not the same word He used when He decided to call Simon bar Jona Peter (petros), but IS the same word He used when speaking of that upon which He would build His church. So obviously, Christ was not speaking of Peter as what He would build His church upon. If He HAD been speaking of Peter, He would simply have said 'you'.

"KEPHAS Or Cephas as you should know means ROCK and no other persona in antiquity had ever been called that name."

Again, scripture and you disagree.
Zur means rock, and is the name of the father of Cozbi and one of the 5 Midianite princes who were slain when Balaam fell, as well as the son of Jehiel, the father or leader of Gibeon (Nu 25:15; Nu 31:8; Jos 13:21; 1Ch 8:30; 1Ch 9:36).

wbmoore »

Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:20 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

No where in the Bible does it say Mary did not sin. It is through learning what is right and wrong that we know what what sin is. In fact, it is when we learn about right and wrong that we die spiritually. For the Jews, it was coming to learn about the Law that caused them to die spiritually.

Romans 7:7-9

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

Now, let us see who has sinned:

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 John 1:10

If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

So all people sin, including Mary. There is only one who has not sinned:
Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin.

Now let's see who is our high priest, who intercedes for us, and who saves us:

Hebrews 7:24-27

24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Christ is the one who intercedes for us. Indeed, we are told by God to not consult dead people, but ask God Himself:

Isaiah 8:19

When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

Salvation is found in no one other than Christ. Christ is our High Priest. He made the ultimate sacrifice and no other sacrifice must be made. There is no other name by which we MUST be saved.

Acts 4:10-12

10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

It is not about Mary. It is about Christ. Christ saves us. Christ is the stone upon which His church is built. Christ is our High Priest. Christ intercedes for us daily.

Online4Him »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:03 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

(You, like online, offer your own perspective without reference of anything else.)

There is no need to reference anything else when the WORD of GOD speaks so clearly.

How is it that you charge prophet with not answering questions when you have repeatedly done the very same thing?

Prophet »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The difference between you and I, Chris, is that you are playing in the pool of tradition (which is indeed deep). I am playing in the pool of scripture and truth (which is deep as well). You are very well versed in the traditions of the Catholic Church, but lack much understanding of Scripture. I am the opposite. I am well versed in Scripture, but lack much understanding of the Catholic Church. But God's Holy Word always wins out over a religious institution.
God created The Word. Man created the Church. I prefer the things of God over the things of man.

Prophet »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:55 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

You just can't understand the scripture that says "ALL have sinned." And that's not even a spiritual revelation. It's not deep. It's simple. But yet the RCC just conveniently brush it under the rug when it comes to Mary. I may not have answered some of your questions, but you still haven't addressed how "all have sinned" and yet Mary didn't. Because we all know it's just not true. Mary was a sinner just as you and I are.

Prophet »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Actually Chris, emotion has nothing to do with it. It's all scripture.

msnchris70 »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Prophet,

Here is what I am guessing. You read my posts and like most undereducated people you react with emotion and little scholarship. You haven't read much CS Lewis have you? Have you read any books by well thought of Protestant theologians or scholars?? EVER???

What is evident is that you desperately want to play in the big pool of deep theological thinking, and yet you still have on your inflatibles on your arms which is your inability to do any type of critical thinking from an academic perspective. You, like online, offer your own perspective without reference of anything else. You offer no historical account, no "Official" church position, and you offer no reference from any other Protestant scholars to rebut my statement.

You just don't get how to debate, do you?

You can always tell when a person is losing a debate when they can never answer a direct question. I've answered your questions and then asked more questions of you and because you conveniently got off subject and tried to use your highest method of emotional tirades, you are exposed for trying to look more intelligent than you are. You have reduced your debate to a base emotional response.

When you can stop dancing around the issues... oh wait does your church allow you to dance? we can then continue to debate.

igh »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:38 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The Mother/Son idols you have are from Babylonian religion, it is found in many religions.


Now look at what it says in Revelation:

Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.


Come out of her, or you partake of her sins!
Who else has fornicated with the Kings of the Earth? Who else has put to death the Saints?



Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Who else fits this description? Think about that.

You may say this does not apply to present times, yet it does! Keep reading it clearly says she will be around during the end times. She sits on seven hills...

And don't think the former Babylon will be rebuilt, for Scripture clearly says God will not allow that kingdom to be rebuilt.

igh »

Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Satan delights in the depravity of man. He enjoys, if i can use that term, in men being unfaithful to there wives, worship of false gods, perversion/homosexuality and stealing
God's Praises.
Lies, Deceptions, murders, are his Trademarks. Bringing mankind into this is a skill he posseses in great understanding, you have to 'see' this to understand.

I want you to take a look at this Prophecy:

1Timothy 4:1 "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;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 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."

The catholic church teaches that to be a priest you have to be celebate. This is false teaching, Peter was married and
had children. Paul i believe stayed single therefore celebate, but he is the only Apostle in Scripture i can see that stayed that way.

Since man is fallen and wicked in his thoughts as the Scriptures say and testify by many many verses, catholic priests cannot help there 'urges for sex' this has led to much homosexuality, preying on children-pedophiles, soliciting prostitutes and preying on nuns. This is undisputable and satan has put into the doctrine of the
catholic church this because HE KNOWS MAN WILL DO PERVERSION AND EVERY EVIL TO FULFILL HIS LUSTS!

Can't you see this? I can see this so clearly, you are being led astray into cultic paganistic babylonian religion. Romewas called Babylon by the early Church, even Peter and John referred to it in Scriptures as Babylon. Because of its similarity to the Babylon religion.

Now listen closely, this 'merged' with Christian worship and led many into its twised and warped understanding. The True worshippers saw this and stayed out.

Prophet »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:46 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

And I see that pride is the cornerstone of the Catholic Church.
Yes, the RCC had 2000 years worth of twisting and corrupting the truth. We all know that. And now the truth is coming out, the Catholics don't like it. The Catholic church is the largest religious entity in the world, but it is dead inside. Man made traditions and myths have tainted the purity of the truth, blinding the eyes of the simple minded.
Mary was the mother of Jesus.
The apocrypha is not inspired by God.
The office of Pope was not created by God, nor by the apostles.
Dead saints do not pray for us, and we can neither entreat them to pray for us.
The rosary is anti-scriptural.
Priests being the only person who can absolve certain sins is anti-scriptural...verging on anti-christ.
Penance is anti-scriptural.
Purgatory is anti-scriptural.
Mary is not the Queen of Heaven, she is not married to God. That is the only way to be a queen, is to be married to a King.
Worshipping Mary is idolatry. There is only one who deserves honor.
Mary was a sinner just as everyone is. To say otherwise is antiscriptural.

As I list these, I see that Catholics take more faith in "traditions" than in scripture. If they truly followed the Word of God, they would see how erroneous their faith is.

The Bible says "For all have sinned...." Does anyone else see the word "all" in there? That includes Mary.
The Bible also says "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Then the Word of God is not in Mary.
But I presume that if Mary were here on earth and saw what was going on, she'd line up all the Catholics (starting with the Pope) and slap each one on the face and tell them to grow up.

Online4Him »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:43 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

(two of the so-called brothers of Jesus, are sons of another Mary, not the Mother of Jesus.)

So, let me see if I understand your post here; now there are two Mary’s who both have sons named JAMES and JOSES, right?

I think not; this is nothing more than mental gymnastics, twisting the scriptures in order to preserve your tradition.

MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT THROUGH YOUR TRADITION, WHICH YE HAVE DELIVERED: AND MANY SUCH LIKE THINGS DO YE. (MARK 7:13).

Online4Him »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

(NO PLACE IN SCRIPTURE DOES IT SAY IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY THAT MARY IS THE MOTHER OF ANYONE ELSE except JESUS.)

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the BROTHER of JAMES, and JOSES, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not HIS SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3)

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES, and the mother of Zebedees children (MATTHEW 27:56)


(MATTHEW 27:56 IS EXPLICITLY SPEAKING OF MARY AND HER SONS! ! ! !)

I do not know how much more explicit the scriptures can be for you? Surely, to deny these texts is to neglect God's explicit Word and impose your own opinion as gospel truth.

Regarding some of the Reformers believing that Mary was a perpetual virgin makes no difference here; the BIBLICAL TEXTS themselves supersede any man’s own opinion or opinions. Our faith is NOT in the Reformers but upon the WORD OF GOD.

Prophet »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. This just gets more and more cult like.
Mary was the mother of Jesus. We are the tabernacle, dwelling place of God.
Jesus is the new Adam, and we are his bride. So that makes us the "new Eve". Although scripture says nothing about a "new Eve." It is a fallacy created by man.

Prophet »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Wow. I thought the RCC was rather covert in their twisting of the Scriptures, but this one is so blantant, only a fool would believe it...

Genesis 3:15 is talking about Eve.

Read the scripture in context.

12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

"The woman" is used 5 times. Now why would God be speaking of Eve in the surrounding scriptures, but "the woman" in verse 15 would mean someone totally different. Because He wasn't. He was speaking of Eve.

msnchris70 »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Prophet,

In Gen 3:15, God is speaking in the future tense that He WILL put enmity between. You see, the Devil won here, because Adam and Eve destined humans for death. They were not originally destined for Death. Now, because of Original sin we die.

Here is the analogy and I'll try to make it as simple as possible for you. Eve said "No" to God, Mary said "Yes", Eve brought death upon the human race through bearing her children, Mary brought ever lasting life through her seed because Jesus saved man and gave us all eternal life, Eve was sinful, Mary was pure, Eve didn't do God's will, Mary did God's will, etc, etc. Do you get it????

Also, Jesus in the New Testament calls Mary and no one else "Woman". This was actually a highly honorific intention by Jesus and not negative like many Protestants believe. Calling Mary "Woman" shows how important she was. Only Mary and Eve are called woman like this.

msnchris70 »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Prophet,

Yes, the Cross was sufficient and Yes Jesus bore the sins of the World, but He did bear them in His Flesh. He paid the penalty rather, so that we can be reconnected to God. Jesus took the penalty of sins upon himself, which was death. He was innocent and yet took upon himself our sins and paid them in FULL, but HIS FLESH WAS NEVER OF SIN. Do you get it yet?

His flesh meant a great deal because he was innocent. He was the innocent and blameless Lamb of God that was sacrificed for our sins.

The biggest issue with most Protestants that are from newer sects is that they have never bothered to read the Old Testament. Remember, the New Testament fulfills the Old so it might be good for you to read it. The Old Testament describes the Ark of the Old Covenant and now Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, for the WORD was in her womb. She carried the Word, much like the Ark carried the Word before. She was made pure by the power of God. She is the new eve as Christ is the New Adam. I'm sure you've heard that before. Most Protestant theologians accept this understanding of Mary.

You see, I do list scripture verses below in my past posts. The problem is that Catholic Theology is far deeper than yours. Our Theology spands 2000 of thinking about what the scriptures really meant at the time they were written and said the FIRST TIME. I'm not saying that Protestants can't have great and wonderful theologians at all. What I am saying is that they are generally handicapped by the denomination they are in because to some extent it lacks any historical continuity to the Apostles and thus makes their conclusions "conjecture" at best.

msnchris70 »

Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Again NO PLACE IN SCRIPTURE DOES IT SAY IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY THAT MARY IS THE MOTHER OF ANYONE ELSE except JESUS. There are quite a few Mary's and if you don't read carefully you can make a big mistake.