Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't disagree; however, the prophecies are a bit more evidential in nature. Too many times too many people get all caught up in non salvation issues, which are open to discussion and interpretation, but result too often in a fertile environment for Lucifer and his earthly minions.

---

Sadly BUDOS, when someone wants a fight that person will ignore anything but that fight.

You'd think believers would put aside these bickerings on Christmas Eve in respect of our Lord.

I had hoped so, anyway.

---

There is no greater respect for the Lord, than to stand for his truth in the face of untruth.

Cowering from doing so dishonors him.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was:

sinless;

perpetually pure (a virgin);

assumed bodily into heaven;

• as a highly glorified being in heaven acts as intercessor between sinners and God (Mediatrix),

---

.

Quote:

---

Think about it - where did you get the belief that you go to this particular saint for one thing, and another saint for another

---

You have two relatives who are Christians, a brother and a sister. Your brother is a Navy Seal, your sister suffered a miscarriage. If your wife miscarries, is she going to ask your brother or your sister to pray for her?

It's unfortunate that the old hymals with the song "Family of God" got tossed by protestant churches trying to be culturally relevant and seeker sensitive. If they were still using them, this might not be so hard to understand.

As for your stubborn, extrabiblical insistence that the saints of previous generations are dead and cannot be spoken to

"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." (Matthew 17:2)

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26)

Any other questions?

---

Again, I just can't believe how frequently you seem to think something supports your point, when it doesn't AT ALL. When Moses and Elijah appeared, ONLY JESUS TALKS WITH THEM. THE DISCIPLES DIDN'T UTTER A WORD AT THEM.

And I didn't say saints were "dead". You continue with your dishonest straw men. Seriously, if you can't understand what's being argued, please stop arguing.

Are you attacking individuals caught up in their interpretations of the Bible or are they attacking you for your interpretation?

Luther and Zwingli "discuss" the real presence. A must watch.

BUDOS said:

---

Are you attacking individuals caught up in their interpretations of the Bible or are they attacking you for your interpretation?

---

Are you reading only what you want to be reading?

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:1-2

Research indicates relatively few read what they don't like, and of the few that do, most read very little of what they don't like.

However, I appreciate that you didn't take your normal attack mode that often seems to be almost totally focused on belittling and stripping the other party of their humanity. Thanks

Oldbear83 said:

---

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:1-2

---

Love for God leads to confronting falsehood, even sharply. Don't mistake that as not having love. Love is tough sometimes. Did Jesus not have love when he told the church at Thyatira that he will "strike her children dead" if they did not repent? Was John the Baptist just a "clanging cymbal" when he called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers"? Was Jesus just a "resounding gong" when he told the Pharisees their father was the Devil, and when he drove out money changers from the temple with a whip?

BUDOS said:

---

Research indicates relatively few read what they don't like, and of the few that do, most read very little of what they don't like.

However, I appreciate that you didn't take your normal attack mode that often seems to be almost totally focused on belittling and stripping the other party of their humanity. Thanks

---

So you DO only read what you want to read. How about preaching to those who attacked me?

When you are a better judge at that, then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge me. Where do you think I went into "attack mode" where I "stripped others of their humanity"? I can sure point you to where that did occur, and it was (tried) against me.

And then tell me where I am wrong, with anything I said. Because it seems like you're trying to attack me personally because you are angry at the truth of what I'm saying and can't contend with any of it.

What do you know about the Pharisees?

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Matthew 6:14-15

"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Mark 11:25

Now that is something that needs to be stamped in our hearts not kept in a phylactery on someone's head.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Matthew 6:14-15

"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Mark 11:25

---

Posting verses is nice, but relevance needs to be a consideration.

BUDOS said:

---

What do you know about the Pharisees?

---

I know they were more interested in attacking Jesus for telling them inconvenient truths, and pointing at him as if HE was the problem rather than their errors. They also couldn't contend with his arguments, so they accused HIM of evil so they didn't have to.

Merry Christmas Everyone! God Bless You & Keep You!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Research indicates relatively few read what they don't like, and of the few that do, most read very little of what they don't like.

However, I appreciate that you didn't take your normal attack mode that often seems to be almost totally focused on belittling and stripping the other party of their humanity. Thanks

---

So you DO only read what you want to read. How about preaching to those who attacked me?

When you are a better judge at that, then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge me. Where do you think I went into "attack mode" where I "stripped others of their humanity"? I can sure point you to where that did occur, and it was (tried) against me.

And then tell me where I am wrong, with anything I said. Because it seems like you're trying to attack me personally because you are angry at the truth of what I'm saying and can't contend with any of it.

---

I personally know of your ability to attack and stripe other of their humanity because they disagree with you.

Excellent! And thank you again for turning your tone down a bit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, I can not emphasize the significance of what I just said any more strongly -

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity anathematizes to HELL those who reject icon veneration - and its rejection was the UNIVERSAL, RESOUNDING WITNESS of the early church and scripture !!

RC and Orthodoxy simply can NOT claim to be the original church. To understand deep into church history is to cease being Roman Catholic/Orthodox.

---

This is NOT an official canon of the Second Council of Nicaea. It was commentary from Basil of Ancyra concerning those bishops who had been led astray by the Iconoclasts came, asking to be received back.

It was not necessarily meant for lay persons. Even if it were directed at lay persons, it was NOT official canon.

Please try to get your facts correct before presenting falsehoods about the Church. For those that would like to read about the Second Council of Nicaea, here is a link. It's quite long. The official canons are listed near the bottom.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, I just can't believe how frequently you seem to think something supports your point, when it doesn't AT ALL. When Moses and Elijah appeared, ONLY JESUS TALKS WITH THEM. THE DISCIPLES DIDN'T UTTER A WORD AT THEM.

And I didn't say saints were "dead". You continue with your dishonest straw men. Seriously, if you can't understand what's being argued, please stop arguing.

---

So your Jesus would do something that is not permitted for humans to do? You have a strange view of Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sinless? Perpetually pure? Assumed bodily into heaven? Mediator between sinners and God? Ominscient and omnipresent in receiving prayers?? HELLO?? Sound familiar AT ALL?? Do you REALLY need an official document to know what's being screamed here?

---

What is your understanding (definition) of omnipresent and omniscient? Please cite where the Catholic Church claims these two attributes that can only be attributed to God alone.

I honestly post this with all humility. I believe that I understand your frustration; however, your posts do NOT present what the Catholic Church teaches.

To quote the Venerable Bishop Fulton J Sheen - "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

This is where you are.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new EVE. (Adam and Eve were born without original sin.) As the first woman came from man, Jesus came from Mary. God, in his wonderfully designed plan, has reversed what happened at the fall! Mary would HAVE to be sinless or she would be less than Eve. That's not possible. In typology, the new is always superior to the old.

---

Mary absolutely HAD to have been conceived in sin. If she was sinless, then she would NOT have been in the line of sinful seed coming from Adam and Eve, and she would NOT have carried that sinful line of seed to be able to produce Jesus who God promised would ultimately come from Eve's sinful line of seed to "crush the head of the serpent". If Mary was sinless, then there couldn't have been a reversal of the Fall through her at all. Your typology fails.

---

Explain where in the bible that the God promises that it will come from a sinful line. That's not in my bible.

In typology the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. Both Adam and Eve were sinless (until the fall), just like Jesus and Mary were both sinless.

St. Augustine said that "the Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed"

Irenaeus of Lyon (180 AD, who was a disciple of Polycarp who was taught by John) shows that he believes that Mary is the new Eve when he says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4).

Eve is the mother of ALL the living.
Mary is the mother of ALL those living in Christ.

The "Eva" (Eve) is reversed by the "Ave" that the angel says to Mary.

The Old Eve fails in the temptation of the fallen angel.
The New Eve (Mary) acquiesced to the invitation of the holy angel.

The Old Eve says "yes" to herself - she did things her way by eating of the tree of knowledge and evil.
The New Eve (Mary), in her fiat, says "yes" to God.

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296373) "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides" (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

What did the original Ark of the Covenant hold? Aaron's staff (high priest), the Manna from the Desert (bread from God), and the Ten Commandments (the Word of God)
What did Mary hold in her womb? Jesus - the High Priest, the Bread from Heaven, and the Word of God.

Where does David find the Ark? In the Hill Country of Judea. Where does Mary (the New Ark) go? To the Hill Country of Judea to visit Elisabeth.

What does David do before the Ark? He leaps and dances. What does John the Baptist do in the womb of Elisabeth? He leaps and dances in her womb.

As I stated earlier, in Typology, the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. If Eve was originally sinless, Mary was also sinless AND remained sinless throughout her life. She is superior to the new eve.

St Luke is screaming this in his Gospel. The early Christians, would have understood this immediately. Sadly, many Protestants does understand and see these connections today.

Finally, the original Ark of the Covenant was made from acacia wood (incorruptible wood) and covered in the most purist of metals of the day - Gold. In typology, the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. Mary MOST definitely been more incorruptible and pure than the original Ark.

It is you that doesn't understand typology correctly.

I truly wish that I could understand it for you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You've repeatedly said Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, but you've never shown how. Sola Scriptura is not self-refuting. This is just another really weak Catholic rebuttal.

---

Show us where in the bible that the bible is the sole rule of faith. You can't. It's self-refuting. The bible never says that. You'll have to explain where that it.

As a bonus, please why we should accept your fallible interpretation of bible passages. Where is your authority?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nowhere in scripture are we told that Mary was a perfect woman. This is yet another heretical attempt at deifying Mary that crept into the Catholic Church over time via accretion, which clearly is not in scripture or the early church.

---

Once again, please cite official Catholic teaching that states that Mary is a God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If God could have chosen Jesus to have been born of any woman, even a prostitute.... then clearly, it was not necessary that Mary be a perfect woman. There is no reason, therefore, to think that she was. The only reason to is by conscious choice, not by divine revelation - a conscious choice to elevate her to the level of deity.

---

God COULD have chosen to have the Christ be born of a *****, but He chose what was FITTING. To have her be born of a sinless virgin. It's sad to see you degrade her like this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Catholics can deny that they worship Mary all they want - but having statues and pictures of her, bowing to her image, kissing her image, praying to her, singing hymns to her, having HUNDREDS of feasts to Mary every year (much, much more than for God), and saying her name 10 times to every one time saying God's name in the rosary..... you just aren't fooling ANYONE. "Worship" isn't just sacrifice. It's all the above. Do Catholics really think people are this stupid to buy this??

---

Dude, please don't lower yourself to a Gish Gallop. Pick one issue to discuss. These are easy to refute. Will your biases allow you to see?

Did you kneel before your wife when you got engaged? I did. It didn't mean that I worshipped her.

Also, remember that Soloman bowed before Bathsheba. He wasn't worshipping her. He was asking for her intercession.

Have you ever kissed a picture of your wife or son? Were you worshipping them? This is a silly objection.

People sing songs to Santa Clause, spouses, historical figures, lovers, ex-lovers, etc. They aren't worshipping them.

I've already discussed the Rosary here before. It's a merely a contemplation of the life of Christ using scripture. Please PM me if you'd like to learn more. Will you listen and understand this time?

Sadly, your biases are clouding your judgement.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In order for Jesus to be the new "Adam", his "Eve" would have to come FROM him, just as Eve was the "new" thing that came from Adam. Mary did not come from Jesus, Jesus was born from her. The "new" thing that came from Jesus was the church, Jesus' body of believers. If there is such a thing as a "new Eve" (which isn't biblical) it would be the church - that's why it's called the bride of Christ. But perhaps it is appropriate, though, to call Mary the new Eve in the sense that Eve brought sin into the world, just as the Catholic Mary has brought heresey and idolatry into Christianity.

---

Are you saying that Mary brought "heresey" into this world? You have a very low opinion of the mother of God. I pray for you to repent of this belief.

Maybe I have explained it well … Just like Eve came from Adam (whose that caused the destruction of mankind), God allowed the REVERSE to fix the world, and Jesus came from Mary.

I'm truly sad that you can't see this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please WAKE UP. Give up the charade. The entire rational world knows you worship Mary.

---

Nope. Worship evolves sacrifice. We only offer sacrifice to God.

Good morning, hope everyone had a great Christmas.

Lets take a step back from the theological specifics of Mary for a second.

Say you had to create a Mount Rushmore list of the people with the best relationsbip with God in history. The list is limited to four. Who would make that list?

Would Mary be on that list?

Mary (the mother of God), John the Baptist (the Forerunner), the Apostle Paul (guy chosen to write most of the NT) for me are the three obvious slam dunk choices.

Probably more wiggle room for the fourth pick, and you could pick from a list with Enoch, Elijah, Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Peter, Stephan, and many others.