Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

---

That doesn't solve your problem. Commitment to Christ can exist independent of water baptism, as in the example. You have a committed Christian who failed to get water baptized before their death, and it was not impossible for them to have gotten it. Are they in hell? If so, then you've falsified many verses in the bible. If not, but they're in heaven, then you've falsified your "impossible" standard.

---

It becomes impossible when they die. Until then they've yet to be judged. It's actually quite reasonable if you don't get too legalistic about it.

---

If it becomes "impossible" when they die, and therefore at that time the water baptism requirement gets waived, then it means the requirement is ultimately moot, because every believer in Jesus regardless of their baptismal status eventually dies. So it doesn't matter then, if a believer was never water baptized - the requirement gets waived upon their death. This isn't legalism, it's simple, plain logic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

---

That doesn't solve your problem. Commitment to Christ can exist independent of water baptism, as in the example. You have a committed Christian who failed to get water baptized before their death, and it was not impossible for them to have gotten it. Are they in hell? If so, then you've falsified many verses in the bible. If not, but they're in heaven, then you've falsified your "impossible" standard.

---

It becomes impossible when they die. Until then they've yet to be judged. It's actually quite reasonable if you don't get too legalistic about it.

---

If it becomes "impossible" when they die, and therefore at that time the water baptism requirement gets waived, then it means the requirement is ultimately moot, because every believer in Jesus regardless of their baptismal status eventually dies. So it doesn't matter then, if a believer was never water baptized - the requirement gets waived upon their death. This isn't legalism, it's simple, plain logic.

---

Not every believer is scheduled to be baptized the day after they die. That's why it's called baptism of desire.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree that we shouldn't fall into the fallacy of the majority. But, Christ promised in Matt 28:20 to be with us until the end of ages and prior to that he established His Church with Peter in Matt 16:18 and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. If the Church believe and taught something erroneously, the Jesus was wrong. That can't be because the Church would have failed. But it didn't.

---

Jesus never said the Church would be infallible, only that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. These are not mutually exclusive. If the Church was wrong, it could be reformed. Jesus' letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation illustrate this.

---

Please explain to me how the letters to the 7 churches mean the Church is fallible. I am not familiar with this argument.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree that we shouldn't fall into the fallacy of the majority. But, Christ promised in Matt 28:20 to be with us until the end of ages and prior to that he established His Church with Peter in Matt 16:18 and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. If the Church believe and taught something erroneously, the Jesus was wrong. That can't be because the Church would have failed. But it didn't.

---

Jesus never said the Church would be infallible, only that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. These are not mutually exclusive. If the Church was wrong, it could be reformed. Jesus' letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation illustrate this.

---

Please explain to me how the letters to the 7 churches mean the Church is fallible. I am not familiar with this argument.

---

BTD will correct me if I am wrong, but in Revelation, Christ warns several churches of sinful behavior which puts them in danger of losing their place. Ergo, that means those churches were fallible.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

---

That doesn't solve your problem. Commitment to Christ can exist independent of water baptism, as in the example. You have a committed Christian who failed to get water baptized before their death, and it was not impossible for them to have gotten it. Are they in hell? If so, then you've falsified many verses in the bible. If not, but they're in heaven, then you've falsified your "impossible" standard.

---

It becomes impossible when they die. Until then they've yet to be judged. It's actually quite reasonable if you don't get too legalistic about it.

---

If it becomes "impossible" when they die, and therefore at that time the water baptism requirement gets waived, then it means the requirement is ultimately moot, because every believer in Jesus regardless of their baptismal status eventually dies. So it doesn't matter then, if a believer was never water baptized - the requirement gets waived upon their death. This isn't legalism, it's simple, plain logic.

---

Not every believer is scheduled to be baptized the day after they die. That's why it's called baptism of desire.

---

But every believer IS destined to die, which you said ultimately waives the water baptism requirement. Is your original statement incorrect?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree that we shouldn't fall into the fallacy of the majority. But, Christ promised in Matt 28:20 to be with us until the end of ages and prior to that he established His Church with Peter in Matt 16:18 and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. If the Church believe and taught something erroneously, the Jesus was wrong. That can't be because the Church would have failed. But it didn't.

---

Jesus never said the Church would be infallible, only that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. These are not mutually exclusive. If the Church was wrong, it could be reformed. Jesus' letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation illustrate this.

---

Please explain to me how the letters to the 7 churches mean the Church is fallible. I am not familiar with this argument.

---

BTD will correct me if I am wrong, but in Revelation, Christ warns several churches of sinful behavior which puts them in danger of losing their place. Ergo, that means those churches were fallible.

---

Yes, correct, but not just sinful behavior, but also that they held false teachings too, like the church in Pergamum who held the teaching of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus "hated".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

---

That doesn't solve your problem. Commitment to Christ can exist independent of water baptism, as in the example. You have a committed Christian who failed to get water baptized before their death, and it was not impossible for them to have gotten it. Are they in hell? If so, then you've falsified many verses in the bible. If not, but they're in heaven, then you've falsified your "impossible" standard.

---

It becomes impossible when they die. Until then they've yet to be judged. It's actually quite reasonable if you don't get too legalistic about it.

---

If it becomes "impossible" when they die, and therefore at that time the water baptism requirement gets waived, then it means the requirement is ultimately moot, because every believer in Jesus regardless of their baptismal status eventually dies. So it doesn't matter then, if a believer was never water baptized - the requirement gets waived upon their death. This isn't legalism, it's simple, plain logic.

---

Not every believer is scheduled to be baptized the day after they die. That's why it's called baptism of desire.

---

But every believer IS destined to die, which you said ultimately waives the water baptism requirement. Is your original statement incorrect?

---

No, it is waived if it becomes impossible despite sincere desire and effort. The teaching implies good faith on the believer's part.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Water baptism is required. The requirement is waived if and when it becomes impossible to fulfill. What's not to understand?

---

By that standard, then, you have to spell out what is "impossible". If someone is scheduled for a baptism at a church in one week, but dies one day before, then although their death now makes it impossible, it wasn't impossible for them to have done it in the days before it was scheduled. So is that person in hell, despite their faith in Jesus? If so, then that would falsify many verses in the bible about salvation. If not, then the "impossible" standard fails.

---

There's only one judgment, upon death (Hebrews 9:27). After death no baptism is possible.

---

Yes, but then that is true in EVERY person's case. Thus, in every person's case the requirement will then be waived, which makes the water baptism requirement moot.

---

The requirement is premised on commitment to Christ. Otherwise it's moot anyway.

---

That doesn't solve your problem. Commitment to Christ can exist independent of water baptism, as in the example. You have a committed Christian who failed to get water baptized before their death, and it was not impossible for them to have gotten it. Are they in hell? If so, then you've falsified many verses in the bible. If not, but they're in heaven, then you've falsified your "impossible" standard.

---

It becomes impossible when they die. Until then they've yet to be judged. It's actually quite reasonable if you don't get too legalistic about it.

---

If it becomes "impossible" when they die, and therefore at that time the water baptism requirement gets waived, then it means the requirement is ultimately moot, because every believer in Jesus regardless of their baptismal status eventually dies. So it doesn't matter then, if a believer was never water baptized - the requirement gets waived upon their death. This isn't legalism, it's simple, plain logic.

---

Not every believer is scheduled to be baptized the day after they die. That's why it's called baptism of desire.

---

But every believer IS destined to die, which you said ultimately waives the water baptism requirement. Is your original statement incorrect?

---

No, it is waived if it becomes impossible despite sincere desire and effort. The teaching implies good faith on the believer's part.

---

Then your original statement needs amendment/correction.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I am certainly not promoting an interpretation free for all, where the bible can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. But if we both have the same Holy Spirit, then we we should be able to discern scriptural truth in a unified way. And our discernment should allow us to weigh the historical teachings of the Church against scripture with correctness and in good faith. I only ask that we allow ourselves to challenge church dogma and see if it holds up to scriptural scrutiny.

---

It has been continuously been brought under scrutiny for nearly 2000 years. The greatest minds have studied this for 1500 years prior to Zwingli. Individuals have cherry-picked singular passages to fit their narratives. It is a modern twisting of the bible on limited passages that has led us to 1000's of different denominations today.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, I remind you that the Church isn't guaranteed to be infallible, so I wouldn't automatically defer to the Church's teachings every time. The Church currently has, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many, many other true believers in Jesus) holds errant teaching today, baptismal regeneration being one of them.

---

Unless Jesus made a mistake, the Church MUST be infallible. He promised us this, as mentioned, in Matt 16:18. IF the Church would err, that would mean that it did fail.

It has NOT failed. It is still here. It has an unbroken line of 267 Popes going back to Peter.

You may not agree with its teaching, but that doesn't mean that there incorrect.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are others, but perhaps that is another topic for another day.

---

Thank you for not adding more to this discuss that we have already have. Often times in these types of debates, people attempt to steamroller or shotgun more topics to overwhelm their opponent.

I'm happy to explain or defend any issue that you believe is in contrast with the Bible.

Coke Bear: "The greatest minds have studied this for 1500 years prior to Zwingli"

This comment bothers me. It implies that a smart human can approach the credibility of Christ, when Jesus chose followers who were very diverse. Peter the Fisherman, for example, is an interesting choice for the first leader of Christ's flock, don't you think?

It suggests we need to trust more than mind in these discussions, I would say.

But I am not one of the 'greatest minds of the last 1500 years'. Nor do we really know if those granted that title really were the best minds out there, but that's for another thread.

The next question I would pose to an evolutionist/naturalist is whether he considers himself moral. If you uphold yourself to any moral purpose whatsoever, you fail to live up to your worldview. As an evolutionist, you should act purely out of utility. Survival is your main goal. Of course none of this makes human experience intelligible given the fact that no one acts this way.

If you disagree with this theory, I ask you, do you steal from the blind? Survival of the fittest right? Would you steal from the blind if it were legal? Many atheists, evolutionists, naturalists, etc wouldn't. Because they are good moral people. They, however, don't live up to the obligation of the way they see the world. You aren't living up to your duty of primal survival. You are actually capable of things totally independent of natural selection, like love...even for those who have no impact on your life. Every dollar you give to the homeless, and every hour you volunteer, you do not out of utility, but out of love. Your goodness causes you to fail to live up to your worldview.


The law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy says that matter cannot be created NOR destroyed, yet matter exists. So, according to scientific law, it is impossible for anything to exist, yet it DOES exist. That is proof that God, who has power over scientific law made it. God created the matter from NOTHING as the bible says. When the bible was written, they knew nothing about the law of thermodynamics or conservation of energy, yet God DID.

But according to scientific law, the matter cannot be created nor destroyed so it's illogical to believe that it exists on it's own because according to science, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to exist.

Where did it come from?

I have no suppressed the Spirit. I have spoken the truth of the Word of God and you have rejected it.

Please explain why you believe Christ's Words when He was on the Earth, BUT
You reject Christ's Words that He gave to Paul?

Paul doesn't disagree with me.

You don't like the fact that Christ sent Paul to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and that I accept the message that Christ Jesus gave to him:

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Salvation is not by Works. If it were, then Christ died for nothing:

Ga 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

(KJV)

Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(KJV)

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

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I am certainly not promoting an interpretation free for all, where the bible can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. But if we both have the same Holy Spirit, then we we should be able to discern scriptural truth in a unified way. And our discernment should allow us to weigh the historical teachings of the Church against scripture with correctness and in good faith. I only ask that we allow ourselves to challenge church dogma and see if it holds up to scriptural scrutiny.

---

It has been continuously been brought under scrutiny for nearly 2000 years. The greatest minds have studied this for 1500 years prior to Zwingli. Individuals have cherry-picked singular passages to fit their narratives. It is a modern twisting of the bible on limited passages that has led us to 1000's of different denominations today.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, I remind you that the Church isn't guaranteed to be infallible, so I wouldn't automatically defer to the Church's teachings every time. The Church currently has, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many, many other true believers in Jesus) holds errant teaching today, baptismal regeneration being one of them.

---

Unless Jesus made a mistake, the Church MUST be infallible. He promised us this, as mentioned, in Matt 16:18. IF the Church would err, that would mean that it did fail.

It has NOT failed. It is still here. It has an unbroken line of 267 Popes going back to Peter.

You may not agree with its teaching, but that doesn't mean that there incorrect.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are others, but perhaps that is another topic for another day.

---

Thank you for not adding more to this discuss that we have already have. Often times in these types of debates, people attempt to steamroller or shotgun more topics to overwhelm their opponent.

I'm happy to explain or defend any issue that you believe is in contrast with the Bible.

---

The reason I want to get away from appeals to authority and "great minds" and rather have us examine the scripture and judge for ourselves is because such appeals won't really have any value in this discussion. Confirmation bias will have you label "the greatest minds" as those who agree with you, while I will think that those "greatest minds" must have not been so great since I think they were wrong. And conversely, I will think the "greatest minds" are those who broke away from traditional Catholic thought and think like I do, while you will think they weren't so great since you think they were wrong. Do you see? It'd be pointless. What I'd like to do, is have us strictly look at the scriptural basis for our positions, and reason for ourselves. If you find that it confirms 2000 years of Catholic thought, then so be it.

You seem to be confusing "fallibility" with "failure". Jesus never promised that his Church, which is the entire body of his believers, would never think wrongly about any issue. As I said before, even Jesus' own disciples were error prone. And as the book of Revelation illustrates, so too is his Church. Consider that as a Catholic, you likely believe that Protestants are in error, and if you believe Protestants are part of the body of believers, you are acknowledging that fallibility is a reality. But this fallibility is not failure. As you say, the Church, Jesus' entire body of true believers, is still here. It did not fail. Satan has NOT defeated it. So Jesus is NOT wrong.

I need to re-emphasize that Jesus' Church is his entire body of believers, and not just the Catholic Church. So any errancy, or even failure, of the Catholic Church would not necessarily be a failure, and thus defeat, of Jesus' Church. I think viewing the "success" of Jesus' Church as meaning the success of the Catholic Church only, is a mistake. Because suppose, for example, the Catholic Church becomes completely corrupt and infiltrated by apostates who try to bring in demon worship, to take an extreme example. Jesus' true Church will break away from that and therefore his true church would still remain, having not been defeated by Satan. Of course you will disagree, but I don't think the continuous succession of Popes necessarily has anything to do with the success of Jesus' Church. That is just Church tradition, and Popes can be just as corrupted as any fallible human, can't they? Don't you think the current Pope is errant in some ways?

Quote:

---

Thank you for not adding more to this discuss that we have already have. Often times in these types of debates, people attempt to steamroller or shotgun more topics to overwhelm their opponent.

I'm happy to explain or defend any issue that you believe is in contrast with the Bible.

---

This topic is way too important to cloud with extraneous topics. People steamroll and shotgun just to "win". Contrary to some people's opinions, that is not what I am interested in. I am only interested in the truth, and I want truth to "win".

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "The greatest minds have studied this for 1500 years prior to Zwingli"

This comment bothers me. It implies that a smart human can approach the credibility of Christ, when Jesus chose followers who were very diverse. Peter the Fisherman, for example, is an interesting choice for the first leader of Christ's flock, don't you think?

It suggests we need to trust more than mind in these discussions, I would say.

But I am not one of the 'greatest minds of the last 1500 years'. Nor do we really know if those granted that title really were the best minds out there, but that's for another thread.

---

You actually make a great point. Having a "great mind" and being smart might have little, if any, to do with discernment of truth. That comes from the Holy Spirit, which is accessible to all believers. And like you say, God has shown He can use the simplest people to reveal the greatest truths; in fact, He prefers doing it that way. We must be careful not to put too much weight on what the world regards as "wise". We must remember when Jesus said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.." We also must be careful not to "profess ourselves wise, thus becoming fools".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "The greatest minds have studied this for 1500 years prior to Zwingli"

This comment bothers me. It implies that a smart human can approach the credibility of Christ, when Jesus chose followers who were very diverse. Peter the Fisherman, for example, is an interesting choice for the first leader of Christ's flock, don't you think?

It suggests we need to trust more than mind in these discussions, I would say.

But I am not one of the 'greatest minds of the last 1500 years'. Nor do we really know if those granted that title really were the best minds out there, but that's for another thread.

---

You actually make a great point. Having a "great mind" and being smart might have little, if any, to do with discernment of truth. That comes from the Holy Spirit, which is accessible to all believers. And like you say, God has shown He can use the simplest people to reveal the greatest truths; in fact, He prefers doing it that way. We must be careful not to put too much weight on what the world regards as "wise". We must remember when Jesus said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.." We also must be careful not to "profess ourselves wise, thus becoming fools".

---

Thank you BTD. I know all too well how to become a fool by imagining I have fully worked out something important.

I know that I said I wouldn't bring in other topics, but I feel that I kinda need to, maybe just a little, because I feel that you are so firmly anchored onto the infallible authority of the Catholic Church that you might not be able to open yourself up to the possibility that they might be wrong, thus hindering your ability to fairly examine scripture relevant to the topic at hand.

Take the issue of the Immaculate Conception - the Catholic belief that Jesus' mother Mary was sinless, free from even original sin. This is clearly unbiblical. There is no indication whatsoever in the bible that tells us Mary was sinless. The bible is explicitly clear that "ALL have sinned" except Jesus. Even Mary herself said, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Would you at least admit that scriptural support exists that falsifies the belief that Mary was sinless? If so, then if 2000 years of the greatest minds in Catholic thought resulted in an egregious error like this, couldn't they also be incorrect with other beliefs, like baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Take the issue of the Immaculate Conception - the Catholic belief that Jesus' mother Mary was sinless, free from even original sin. This is clearly unbiblical. There is no indication whatsoever in the bible that tells us Mary was sinless. The bible is explicitly clear that "ALL have sinned" except Jesus. Even Mary herself said, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Would you at least admit that scriptural support exists that falsifies the belief that Mary was sinless? If so, then if 2000 years of the greatest minds in Catholic thought resulted in an egregious error like this, couldn't they also be incorrect with other beliefs, like baptismal regeneration?

---

I'll get to your last night's posts later today. I just popped in during lunch to catch this. People are making me work today. Crazy talk! ; )

Without trying to be condensing, I'd like to review what the Immaculate Conception is, in case someone comes along this post and believes that it refers to Jesus' conception.

Quoting the CCC:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Did Jesus sin?
Do babies sin?
Do people with mental handicaps sin?

Obviously, 'no' is the correct answer to all these questions. St Paul was speaking metaphorically when he say ALL have sinned in Romans 3:23. How do we know? Because Paul also stated later in Romans 9:11:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand

He is referring to Jacob and Esau in the womb of Rebecca.

Mary needed a savior? Absolutely! Who do you think preserved her from original sin? Jesus did.

Imagine that I am walking toward a deep pit that I don't see and fall in. You pull me out. You saved me. Now imagine that I'm walking toward that same pit, but before I feel in, you stopped me. You STILL saved me.

Same principle with our Blessed Mother. Christ redeemed her BEFORE she was conceived. Do you NOT believe that God has the ability to do this?

One last point. I'm not sure how Baptist feel about typology, buy we Catholics love it. Take the Ark of the Old Covenant and the Ark of the New Covenant , for example. It was made of acacia wood, the hardest of the hardwoods, that is water, rot, and insect resistant (incorruptible) and covered in pure gold. It contained 3 objects:

The Ten Commandments - Word of God
Manna - Bread from God
Aaron's staff - the High Priest

We view Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant as mentioned in Revelation. Mary was as incorruptible as the acacia and as pure as the gold, but what was in her womb?

Jesus - the Word of God
Jesus - Bread from God
Jesus - the High Priest

Finally, do you honestly believe that no scholar in the first 1500 years ran across your two passages? Even Martin Luther believed in Mary was immaculately conceived.

Oops! I forgot to add Luke 1:28 into the mix here:

"And coming to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you."

The Greek is Chaire, kecharitmen

Chaire is Hail. The authors in the NT use the not so much as a saluation as announcement of a title. They use the same Chaire, when the Roman soldiers are mocking Jesus saying, "Hail, King of the Jews."

The kecharitmen is translated best as "Full of Grace". It is the feminine present perfect passive voice participle of a verb. Meaning that Mary is and was always full of grace.

I tend to nerd out a little here. I used to teach a session about the Marian dogmas to candidates entering the Church at my parish.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Take the issue of the Immaculate Conception - the Catholic belief that Jesus' mother Mary was sinless, free from even original sin. This is clearly unbiblical. There is no indication whatsoever in the bible that tells us Mary was sinless. The bible is explicitly clear that "ALL have sinned" except Jesus. Even Mary herself said, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Would you at least admit that scriptural support exists that falsifies the belief that Mary was sinless? If so, then if 2000 years of the greatest minds in Catholic thought resulted in an egregious error like this, couldn't they also be incorrect with other beliefs, like baptismal regeneration?

---

I'll get to your last night's posts later today. I just popped in during lunch to catch this. People are making me work today. Crazy talk! ; )

Without trying to be condensing, I'd like to review what the Immaculate Conception is, in case someone comes along this post and believes that it refers to Jesus' conception.

Quoting the CCC:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Did Jesus sin?
Do babies sin?
Do people with mental handicaps sin?

Obviously, 'no' is the correct answer to all these questions. St Paul was speaking metaphorically when he say ALL have sinned in Romans 3:23. How do we know? Because Paul also stated later in Romans 9:11:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand

He is referring to Jacob and Esau in the womb of Rebecca.

Mary needed a savior? Absolutely! Who do you think preserved her from original sin? Jesus did.

Imagine that I am walking toward a deep pit that I don't see and fall in. You pull me out. You saved me. Now imagine that I'm walking toward that same pit, but before I feel in, you stopped me. You STILL saved me.

Same principle with our Blessed Mother. Christ redeemed her BEFORE she was conceived. Do you NOT believe that God has the ability to do this?

One last point. I'm not sure how Baptist feel about typology, buy we Catholics love it. Take the Ark of the Old Covenant and the Ark of the New Covenant , for example. It was made of acacia wood, the hardest of the hardwoods, that is water, rot, and insect resistant (incorruptible) and covered in pure gold. It contained 3 objects:

The Ten Commandments - Word of God
Manna - Bread from God
Aaron's staff - the High Priest

We view Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant as mentioned in Revelation. Mary was as incorruptible as the acacia and as pure as the gold, but what was in her womb?

Jesus - the Word of God
Jesus - Bread from God
Jesus - the High Priest

Finally, do you honestly believe that no scholar in the first 1500 years ran across your two passages? Even Martin Luther believed in Mary was immaculately conceived.

---

Yes, of course I knew scholars came across those two passages. It's how they have to get around it using unbiblical support that is what I'm getting at.

Though babies and the mentally handicapped don't commit sin, they still are born into sin nature. We who are born of human parents are born into sin and therefore all have "fallen short of God". There just isn't anything biblical that supports the belief that Mary was exempt. Obviously Paul was excluding Jesus because he was the perfect Savior, so it's understood. The bible explicitly tells us Jesus was sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 3:5, 1 Peter 2:22). Nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary was sinless. Nowhere does it say that Mary was preserved from original sin before she was conceived, either. That is just pure speculation that has no scriptural basis whatsoever. Yes, I suppose I believe it's something God could do, but I believe God can do a lot of things. But that doesn't mean He did them, absent of scriptural support. It's a really bad argument to say something happened, because "well, you believe God is able to do it, don't you?"

Typology in the bible is wonderful, and to me it shows that God is in control of history and that the bible is truly His word. I think the parallels between the ark of the covenant and Mary are really interesting, but it doesn't necessarily translate to Mary being sinless, especially given there is no other indication in scripture that this is true. In fact, other than saying that all generations will call her "blessed", the gospels tend to downplay her significance, if anything. Jesus addresses her simply as "Woman". And when someone shouted out "blessed is the womb which bore you" Jesus didn't affirm that, but instead he diverts away from it by replying "blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" You would think if Mary was sinless then it would have carried a lot more significance in the bible.

The bottom line is there just isn't any biblical evidence for the sinlessness of Mary. It seems merely to be derived from speculation and drawing meaning from verses that really isn't there. I think the motivation is based on the pious appreciation for Mary, which isn't wrong, but it's dangerous to believe things the bible doesn't teach, like elevating Mary to God-like status.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oops! I forgot to add Luke 1:28 into the mix here:

"And coming to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you."

The Greek is Chaire, kecharitmen

Chaire is Hail. The authors in the NT use the not so much as a saluation as announcement of a title. They use the same Chaire, when the Roman soldiers are mocking Jesus saying, "Hail, King of the Jews."

The kecharitmen is translated best as "Full of Grace". It is the feminine present perfect passive voice participle of a verb. Meaning that Mary is and was always full of grace.

I tend to nerd out a little here. I used to teach a session about the Marian dogmas to candidates entering the Church at my parish.

---

Kecharitmen is a unique word and therefore difficult to accurately translate. Other translations are "graced one", "highly graced", and "highly favored". I'm not sure how you came to "full of grace" as being the best translation. Most bible translations go with "highly favored". Regardless, I don't see why this indicates that Mary was sinless. Jesus, who was sinless, was referred to as being "full of grace" but the Greek word was different.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

Please take the time to respect other opinions if you have not already

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Though babies and the mentally handicapped don't commit sin, they still are born into sin nature. We who are born of human parents are born into sin and therefore all have "fallen short of God". There just isn't anything biblical that supports the belief that Mary was exempt. Obviously Paul was excluding Jesus because he was the perfect Savior, so it's understood. The bible explicitly tells us Jesus was sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 3:5, 1 Peter 2:22). Nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary was sinless. Nowhere does it say that Mary was preserved from original sin before she was conceived, either. That is just pure speculation that has no scriptural basis whatsoever. Yes, I suppose I believe it's something God could do, but I believe God can do a lot of things. But that doesn't mean He did them, absent of scriptural support. It's a really bad argument to say something happened, because "well, you believe God is able to do it, don't you?"

---

Romans 3:23 is talking about Personal sin, not original sin. Original sin is something you inherit, not something we do. We know he is discussing personal sin here because of the preceding verses 10-14:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness

This is personal sin. Therefore, babies and mentally challenged people are also "obvious" exclusions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Typology in the bible is wonderful, and to me it shows that God is in control of history and that the bible is truly His word. I think the parallels between the ark of the covenant and Mary are really interesting, but it doesn't necessarily translate to Mary being sinless, especially given there is no other indication in scripture that this is true. In fact, other than saying that all generations will call her "blessed", the gospels tend to downplay her significance, if anything. Jesus addresses her simply as "Woman". And when someone shouted out "blessed is the womb which bore you" Jesus didn't affirm that, but instead he diverts away from it by replying "blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" You would think if Mary was sinless then it would have carried a lot more significance in the bible.

---

Woman - Do you really believe that Jesus would downplay and dis his mother? Wouldn't that be breaking the 4th commandment of honoring thy father and mother? My Jesus wouldn't do that.

John uses the word 'Woman' as a reference to back to Genesis. That what John does. John 1 is a retelling of Genesis in the new testament.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming ...
35 The next day John was there again ...
43 The next day Jesus decided ...

2:1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana ...

Real quickly here, we have the first complete week of the Bible. Day 1 - Verse 1, Day 2 - Verse 29, Day 3 - Verse 35, and Day 4 - Verse 43. Look at 2:1 "On the 3rd day" Counting from Day 4 (1-2-3 = Day 5, 6, and then 7) Chapter 2 - The Wedding Feast of Cana - Jesus' first sign happened on John's 7th day of Creation.

Then in John 19:26-27 Jesus says, "Woman, behold your son." Then he said to his disciple, "Behold your Mother."

This was NOT a term of disrespect or downplaying.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The bottom line is there just isn't any biblical evidence for the sinlessness of Mary. It seems merely to be derived from speculation and drawing meaning from verses that really isn't there. I think the motivation is based on the pious appreciation for Mary, which isn't wrong, but it's dangerous to believe things the bible doesn't teach, like elevating Mary to God-like status.

---

I would agree that "elevating Mary to God-like status" would be idolatry. Please find one Catholic teaching that states that Mary is to be worshiped like God. She is the holiest human to ever walk the earth, but she is infinitely below the Trinity. She's a human.

Bottom line is that Luke tells us that Mary was, is, and always will be sinless. That is the biblical evidence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Kecharitmen is a unique word and therefore difficult to accurately translate. Other translations are "graced one", "highly graced", and "highly favored". I'm not sure how you came to "full of grace" as being the best translation. Most bible translations go with "highly favored". Regardless, I don't see why this indicates that Mary was sinless. Jesus, who was sinless, was referred to as being "full of grace" but the Greek word was different.

---

How many Protestant translations exist vs. Catholic translations? Many more. Is it possible that there are more Protestant translations that apply their scriptural basis that account for"highly favored" translations? I would argue so.

Even if you went with your most frequented translation, it still does not dispute the fact that the Greek verb is perfect passive participle. The word means "she who has been graced"in a completed sense. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past, resulting in a present state of being and indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

"She is the holiest human to ever walk the earth"


"Bottom line is that Luke tells us that Mary was, is, and always will be sinless"

I am very uncomfortable with both of these statements. They remind me of the Marian cult which claims Mary will intercede with Christ on our behalf, essentially making her a mini-Christ. And neither statement is actually supported by Scripture.

To the first claim, are you truly saying that Mary was holier than, say, Enoch (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5), or Abraham, whose faith so pleased God that the very Covenant which saves Mankind was created out of God's love for Abraham? Are you saying that Christ was untruthful when He said "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist" (Matthew 11:11)?

My point is not to glorify those individuals, but to caution us against focusing on humans when we should focus on God? We do not pray to Enoch, Abraham or John the Baptist, so I disagree with the 'Hail Mary', which directs prayers not to our Lord but through a human woman.

And regarding Mary, there is scripture where she was in clear error, albeit a small one. In Matthew 12:46-50 (also Mark 3:31-35), we read that Mary and some of Jesus' brothers wants to interrupt Him for something, and Jesus said "Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers." (Matthew 12:49, Mark 3:34).

Mary was a great servant of the Lord, and certainly pleasing to God. She was not holier than the Disciples or Apostles or Prophets.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"She is the holiest human to ever walk the earth"


"Bottom line is that Luke tells us that Mary was, is, and always will be sinless"

I am very uncomfortable with both of these statements. They remind me of the Marian cult which claims Mary will intercede with Christ on our behalf, essentially making her a mini-Christ. And neither statement is actually supported by Scripture.

To the first claim, are you truly saying that Mary was holier than, say, Enoch (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5), or Abraham, whose faith so pleased God that the very Covenant which saves Mankind was created out of God's love for Abraham? Are you saying that Christ was untruthful when He said "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist" (Matthew 11:11)?

My point is not to glorify those individuals, but to caution us against focusing on humans when we should focus on God? We do not pray to Enoch, Abraham or John the Baptist, so I disagree with the 'Hail Mary', which directs prayers not to our Lord but through a human woman.

And regarding Mary, there is scripture where she was in clear error, albeit a small one. In Matthew 12:46-50 (also Mark 3:31-35), we read that Mary and some of Jesus' brothers wants to interrupt Him for something, and Jesus said "Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers." (Matthew 12:49, Mark 3:34).

Mary was a great servant of the Lord, and certainly pleasing to God. She was not holier than the Disciples or Apostles or Prophets.

---

Short version: some of us are convinced that intercessory prayer is efficacious and further, seeking intercession from Mary, the saints, or anyone else within the communion of saints is to be commended. As someone raised Southern Baptist, I understand how difficult it may be for some to agree. Nevertheless…

Quote:

---

Romans 3:23 is talking about Personal sin, not original sin. Original sin is something you inherit, not something we do. We know he is discussing personal sin here because of the preceding verses 10-14:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness

This is personal sin. Therefore, babies and mentally challenged people are also "obvious" exclusions.

---

But Mary was not just a baby, and she wasn't mentally challenged. Nor was she Jesus. So why was she exempt from "all"? Because she was "full of grace"?? Because we're supposed to read into it from typology that she represented the ark? Because even though she herself said she needed a Savior, we're supposed to believe that this means she was saved preconceptionally from original sin? None of this is biblical support of her being sinless. Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

Quote:

---

Woman - Do you really believe that Jesus would downplay and dis his mother? Wouldn't that be breaking the 4th commandment of honoring thy father and mother? My Jesus wouldn't do that.

John uses the word 'Woman' as a reference to back to Genesis. That what John does. John 1 is a retelling of Genesis in the new testament.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming ...
35 The next day John was there again ...
43 The next day Jesus decided ...
2:1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana ...
Real quickly here, we have the first complete week of the Bible. Day 1 - Verse 1, Day 2 - Verse 29, Day 3 - Verse 35, and Day 4 - Verse 43. Look at 2:1 "On the 3rd day" Counting from Day 4 (1-2-3 = Day 5, 6, and then 7) Chapter 2 - The Wedding Feast of Cana - Jesus' first sign happened on John's 7th day of Creation.
Then in John 19:26-27 Jesus says, "Woman, behold your son." Then he said to his disciple, "Behold your Mother." This was NOT a term of disrespect or downplaying.

---

I'm not really understanding the significance of the word "woman" and the supposed retelling of Genesis, and how this relates to Mary being elevated in some way. The word "woman" is the same word for the woman at the well. It is a plain word that just means woman. The point was not that Jesus or the bible was "disrespecting" Mary, but that they make no special point to elevate her beyond the ordinary. Jesus did it twice, when he didn't affirm the woman who yelled out "blessed is the womb that gave birth to you" and when he was told "your mother and brothers are here to see you" and answered "who is my mother and brothers? Those who obey God's will are my mother and brothers!" (paraphrased). I'm not trying to say that Jesus was "dissing" his mother. But it's obvious that he did not affirm the elevation of her status. The bible just doesn't teach that Mary was any more significant than just being the highly favored woman who was chosen to give birth to Jesus and who Jesus obviously loved.

Quote:

---

Bottom line is that Luke tells us that Mary was, is, and always will be sinless. That is the biblical evidence.

---

But Luke really doesn't. I really think you're reading into Luke what really isn't there. "Full of grace" means forever sinless? Even though she calls God her "Savior" we're supposed to read into it that she was saved from original sin before she was conceived? Really??

curtpenn: "some of us are convinced that intercessory prayer is efficacious and further, seeking intercession from Mary, the saints, or anyone else within the communion of saints is to be commended"

Can you elaborate, please? I have done reading on the RCC practices and doctrines, but never understood the reasoning here.

For example, why should Mary or any of the Saints, who do not know me beyond me reaching out to them consider my plea worthy of their extra efforts?

And why should God consider a prayer from a saint if He would not hear it from the original petitioner? I am reminded of Saul after he fell from God's approval, begging Samuel to intercede for him, and Samuel plainly telling Saul it would do him no good.

I meant what I said about considering other opinions, but this one has always struck me as tokenism, like the belief that a piece of bone from a saint having power of some kind.

Thanks for your answer.

Quote:

---

I would agree that "elevating Mary to God-like status" would be idolatry. Please find one Catholic teaching that states that Mary is to be worshiped like God. She is the holiest human to ever walk the earth, but she is infinitely below the Trinity. She's a human.

---

If Catholics believe Mary is sinless, was assumed into heaven bodily like Jesus, pray to her, kiss her statue, and some believe she is a Co-Redeemer.....you don't think that is idolatry?

Even regarding her as the "holiest human to ever walk the earth" has absolutely no biblical basis, and is dangerously close to idolatry. And more importantly, as OldBear pointed out, it directly contradicts Jesus when he said "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John (the Baptist)."

Here is a prayer from Pope Pius XII:

"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty,

and impelled by the anxieties of the world,
we cast ourselves into your arms,
O Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary,
confident of finding in your most loving heart
appeasement of our ardent desires,
and a safe harbour from the tempests
which beset us on every side.

Though degraded by our faults
and overwhelmed by infinite misery,
we admire and praise the peerless richness
of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you,
above every other mere creature,
from the first moment of your conception
until the day on which,
after your assumption into heaven,
he crowned you Queen of the Universe.

O crystal Fountain of Faith,
bathe our minds with the eternal truths!
O fragrant Lily of All Holiness,
captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume!
O Conqueress of Evil and Death,
inspire in us a deep horror of sin,
which makes the soul detestable to God

and a slave of hell! O well-beloved of God,
hear the ardent cry
which rises up from every heart.
Bend tenderly over our aching wounds.
Convert the wicked,
dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed,
comfort the poor and humble,
quench hatreds, sweeten hardness,
safeguard the flower of purity in youth,
protect the holy church,
make all men feel the attractions of Christian goodness.
In your name,
resounding harmoniously in heaven,
may they recognize that they are brothers,
and that the nations are members of one family,
upon which may there shine forth the sun
of a universal and sincere peace.

Receive, O most sweet Mother,
our humble supplications,
and above all obtain for us that,
one day, happy with you,
we may repeat before your throne that hymn
which today is sung on earth around your altars:
You are all-beautiful, O Mary!
You are the glory,
your are the joy,
your are the honor of our people!

Amen. "


These words are praise and worship that should be given to JESUS and GOD ONLY. Can you honestly read these words and not see idolatry??

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"She is the holiest human to ever walk the earth"


"Bottom line is that Luke tells us that Mary was, is, and always will be sinless"

I am very uncomfortable with both of these statements. They remind me of the Marian cult which claims Mary will intercede with Christ on our behalf, essentially making her a mini-Christ. And neither statement is actually supported by Scripture.

To the first claim, are you truly saying that Mary was holier than, say, Enoch (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5), or Abraham, whose faith so pleased God that the very Covenant which saves Mankind was created out of God's love for Abraham? Are you saying that Christ was untruthful when He said "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist" (Matthew 11:11)?

My point is not to glorify those individuals, but to caution us against focusing on humans when we should focus on God? We do not pray to Enoch, Abraham or John the Baptist, so I disagree with the 'Hail Mary', which directs prayers not to our Lord but through a human woman.

And regarding Mary, there is scripture where she was in clear error, albeit a small one. In Matthew 12:46-50 (also Mark 3:31-35), we read that Mary and some of Jesus' brothers wants to interrupt Him for something, and Jesus said "Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers." (Matthew 12:49, Mark 3:34).

Mary was a great servant of the Lord, and certainly pleasing to God. She was not holier than the Disciples or Apostles or Prophets.

---

Short version: some of us are convinced that intercessory prayer is efficacious and further, seeking intercession from Mary, the saints, or anyone else within the communion of saints is to be commended. As someone raised Southern Baptist, I understand how difficult it may be for some to agree. Nevertheless…

---

Where is your biblical evidence for this?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Kecharitmen is a unique word and therefore difficult to accurately translate. Other translations are "graced one", "highly graced", and "highly favored". I'm not sure how you came to "full of grace" as being the best translation. Most bible translations go with "highly favored". Regardless, I don't see why this indicates that Mary was sinless. Jesus, who was sinless, was referred to as being "full of grace" but the Greek word was different.

---

How many Protestant translations exist vs. Catholic translations? Many more. Is it possible that there are more Protestant translations that apply their scriptural basis that account for"highly favored" translations? I would argue so.

Even if you went with your most frequented translation, it still does not dispute the fact that the Greek verb is perfect passive participle. The word means "she who has been graced"in a completed sense. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past, resulting in a present state of being and indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

---

But how is "graced" in the completed sense mean that she was sinless? Jesus was also referred to as being "full of grace" but it was a different word, and we know that he was sinless. The same word for Jesus was even used for Stephen in the book of Acts. Was Stephen sinless too?

And how exactly could Jesus save Mary from original sin before she was conceived, if the only way to remove the curse of original sin was for Jesus to suffer and die, which he had not done yet? If you're saying that it was possible for God to remove original sin without having to sacrifice Jesus on the cross, then doesn't that make Jesus' suffering and dying superfluous and unnecessary?

Quote:

---

I would agree that "elevating Mary to God-like status" would be idolatry. Please find one Catholic teaching that states that Mary is to be worshiped like God. She is the holiest human to ever walk the earth, but she is infinitely below the Trinity. She's a human.

---

Here is more. These are from The Glories of Mary, compiled by St. Alphonsus Ligouri in 1745, which was sanctioned and authorized by the Catholic Church:

"Oh Mary, sweet refuge of poor sinners, assist me with thy mercy, banish me from the infernal enemies, and come thou to take my soul and present it to the eternal judge, my queen, do not abandon me, I give you my heart and soul."

"Oh immaculate and holy pure virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of the World, thou are the joy of the saints, thou art the peacemaker between sinners and God, thou art the advocate of the abandoned, the secure haven of those who are on the sea of this world, thou art the consolation of this world, the ransomer of slaves, the comforter of the afflicted, the salvation of the universe."

"We have confidence but in thee, O most faithful virgin, O great Mediatress of peace between men and God, the love of all men and of God to whom the honor and benediction with the Father and the Holy Ghost, amen."

"O sovereign lady, saint of all saints, our strength and our refuge, God as it were, of this world, glory of heaven, accept those who love thee."

"O sovereign princess, turn o Mary thy loving eyes on me, look at me and draw me to thee"

Mary, Blessed Virgin, Immaculate Queen, I dedicate my family forever to thy service, I appoint thee ruler of my whole house. Bless us, defend us, provide for us, counsel us, comfort us, assist us in our infirmities, especially in the sorrows of death, grant that we may go to heaven."

"Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

"Mary throws open the door of God's mercies to anyone she pleases, when she pleases, as she pleases"



And there are a lot more.
Mary is given attributes as well as praise and worship that ONLY belong to God and Jesus. If one can't see the blatant heresy and idolatry here, then one is severely blind and deceived.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.