Hard questions from golfjack

[thessalonian]

Golfjack asked the following:

1)The idea that Mary has no sin is not supported in Scripture.

2) She bore Jesus as the son of man, but not the Son of God, as the Word says, He was born of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had spiritual DNA.

3) They say Mary was assumed up to heaven, but no Biblical support. In fact, I don't think Catholics have to believe this.

4)They say, she is Co-Matrix. What that really means, I don't know. But once on EWTN,

5)I saw a cross with Jesus there, and Mary over Him, nailed too. It was bloody too. I am not making this up. After talking to another Catholic, he first denied it, but later said this was true.

6) Also, I believe Catholics do not have to believe in the Marion visions and miracles. Therefore, I think Catholics have a vivid immagination, and assume things happened in Biblical times.

7)Many will tell you that the first five books of the Bible are not inspired. Even on TV. a priest said this, and the book of Acts was not inspired. I met a priest about 2 years ago, and he said that the Pauline Epistles are just Philosphy. But the Pauline Epistles take over half the New Testament.

8)One more thing I have a concern about is the Opus-dei group in the Catholic Church. It is not enough that they beat themselves with a whip on the back, but also put some kind of pointed strap on their legs for 12 hours, that makes them bleed. Why, I think they want to get closer to God, and try to tame the flesh.

9) Some even our freemasons.

Let's give it the old college try fellow catholics. :-D

 

[thessalonian]

Golfjack asked the following:

1)The idea that Mary has no sin is not supported in Scripture.

You do not see it because you don't believe it. We on the other hand see it in Luke 1 where the angel says to Mary "hail mary, full of GRACE". To be full of grace means that there is not room for sin. Also in her cantacle she says "my soul magnifies the glory of the Lord". Such a soul would be sinless. Further you might want to read a thread I have on this part of the forum down below about the Old Testament vs. NT parrellels between the ark of the covenant and Mary. This also points to Mary being a special creation by the father for the son just as the Ark was created to God's specifications as the God bearer. It was made of extremely pure materials and was so holy that if one were to touch it they would die.

Don't fall in to the logical fallacy that sinlessness makes one god or a god. It doesn't follow, as Adam and Eve in the garden prove.

2) She bore Jesus as the son of man, but not the Son of God, as the Word says, He was born of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had spiritual DNA.

As I said before Elizabeth says "how is it that the mother of MY LORD" should come to me. Was Jesus Elizabeth's Lord because he was God? I think so. Jesus was God in Mary's womb and therefore God passed through the birth canal. That's all the doctrine means.

3) They say Mary was assumed up to heaven, but no Biblical support. In fact, I don't think Catholics have to believe this.

Well if we go back to the ark of the covenant parrellel I spoke of above and then read Rev 11, John has a vision of the Ark in the sky and the next vision he has is a woman clothed with 12 stars. He sees the ark in the sky and Mary. That has implications of the assumption. Not explicit but then neither is the statement "the bible is the sole rule of faith". Also in the Psalms we see the following passage:

Psalm 132
8: Arise, O LORD, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.

More ark, Mary parrelleling. We also know that "the queen sits at the right hand arrayed in gold". Psalm 45. So while it is not explicit it is implicit from a Catholic viewpoint.

4)They say, she is Co-Matrix. What that really means, I don't know. But once on EWTN,

The term is co-mediation and means that Mary cooperates in Christ's mediation for mankind. It does not mean that she is the one mediator or another mediator.

5)I saw a cross with Jesus there, and Mary over Him, nailed too. It was bloody too. I am not making this up. After talking to another Catholic, he first denied it, but later said this was true.

I think I responded to this adequatedly over in my Biblical art post in apologetics. Likely the artwork was a depiction of Simeon's prophecy that a sword would pierce Mary's heart in Luke 2.

6) Also, I believe Catholics do not have to believe in the Marion visions and miracles. Therefore, I think Catholics have a vivid immagination, and assume things happened in Biblical times.

What, that such visions didn't occure in biblical times? Were not the relatives of the people seen in Jerusalem on the day of the crusifixion? Did Jesus see elijah and moses or not? Peter was greated by angels. Where in scripture does it say there will be no visions of this kind. Yes we must be careful that they are not an "angel of light". There are good tests for that of course. No Catholics don't have to believe these visions occured however.

7)Many will tell you that the first five books of the Bible are not inspired. Even on TV. a priest said this, and the book of Acts was not inspired. I met a priest about 2 years ago, and he said that the Pauline Epistles are just Philosphy. But the Pauline Epistles take over half the New Testament.

The Catholic Church quite clearly teaches that all 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking on their own and speaking falsely, creating wicked scandal. Now there are 46,000 preists in this country and you found 2 that questioned the divine inspiration of the Bible. There may well be more but I bet you it's less than 1 percent of the total. I've heard protestant pastors say as much so what's the point.

8)One more thing I have a concern about is the Opus-dei group in the Catholic Church. It is not enough that they beat themselves with a whip on the back, but also put some kind of pointed strap on their legs for 12 hours, that makes them bleed. Why, I think they want to get closer to God, and try to tame the flesh.

I am not overly familiar with Opus Dei. Yes they are still in the Church and growing from what I understand. They are a group with rules and disciplines. Some do take it to excess as the Church itself has noted about some who do rigorous penances. God is there judge. The Church does not require anyone to do penances. I know some members of Opus Dei and they are quite normal. The things you speak of are rare in OD.

9) Some even our freemasons.

This I doudt because freemasonry is forbidden, even an exommunicabe offense in the Catholic Church and the OD people I know are solidly Catholic. You may be confusing them with the Jesuits which can be somewhat more dissenting than OD and some have been rumored to be FM's. Though I would still question this.

 

[golfjack]

reply

Thanks for the answers. We do have a difference in interpretations, and friend, some day I will see you in heaven to see who was right or wrong.