Sinless Mary? Another Roman Catholic myth...

[thessalonian]

It is not for instance an error per sey to say the word paradosis in 2 Thes 2:15 is a teaching as MANY protestant Bibles render it. A tradition is a teaching. But paradosis is ALWAYS properly rended tradition which is a teaching handed down. Didache is the word properly rendered teaching.

With regard to this I forgot to mention that the NIV even admits that the translate paradosis teaching because of the bias of Protestants against the word teaching. :roll:

 

[D46]

Thess-So, you believe that Mary was immaculately conceived? Your church teaches it so I assume you do as well. Also, I take it you believe in her Assumption, that she never died like everyone else and her body physically was taken up into heaven? How about the tooth fairy? You believe in that as well? Perhaps the Easter bunny and Santa. Makes about as much sense. :roll:

TOTUS TUUS SUM MARIA...right.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/mry-a70.htm

 

[HisFriend]

Thess-So, you believe that Mary was immaculately conceived? Your church teaches it so I assume you do as well. Also, I take it you believe in her Assumption, that she never died like everyone else and her body physically was taken up into heaven? How about the tooth fairy? You believe in that as well? Perhaps the Easter bunny and Santa. Makes about as much sense. :roll:

TOTUS TUUS SUM MARIA...right.

I know... :o .... just like the fairy tales of virgin births, miracles, the sun standing still, parting the Red Sea with a staff, men raising from the dead....

.... and living men taken up into heaven in chariots of fire...

all right there with the Easter Bunny story.

 

[D46]

Thess-So, you believe that Mary was immaculately conceived? Your church teaches it so I assume you do as well. Also, I take it you believe in her Assumption, that she never died like everyone else and her body physically was taken up into heaven? How about the tooth fairy? You believe in that as well? Perhaps the Easter bunny and Santa. Makes about as much sense. :roll:

TOTUS TUUS SUM MARIA...right.

I know... :o .... just like the fairy tales of virgin births, miracles, the sun standing still, parting the Red Sea with a staff, men raising from the dead....

.... and living men taken up into heaven in chariots of fire...

all right there with the Easter Bunny story.

Scripture backs up it's claims and anyone can choose to believe it or not. Do you think the bible is and Easter Bunny story? Strange how the RCC claims infallibility and never changes and yet, after all that time they claim to be around, it wasn't until 1950 when Picelli (Pius XII) claimed this dogma. Now there's a guy I'd really believe. After all, signing concordats wilth Mussolini and Hitler and hiding Nazi and Ustashe war criminals...yeah, right :roll: A guy so trustworthy and a church that took centuries to come up with another lie to deceive the masses. That very claim was once considered heresy by the very church that deemed it church dogma in the '50's...semper eadem!! :-?

Tertullian says that we can know if God has done something by validating it from Scripture. Not to be able to do so invalidates any claim that a teaching has been revealed by God. This comes back again to the patristic principle of sola scriptura, a principle universally adhered to in the eaerly Church. But one which has been repudiated by the Roman Church and which has resulted in its embracing and promoting teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, which were never taught in the early Church and which have no Scriptural backing.

The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it. But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God.

 

[CatholicXian]

Genesis 3:15

God puts enmity (complete and radical opposition) between the woman and the serpent, and between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The seed of the woman is seen to be Jesus Christ, thus the woman is Mary (not the Church, the Church does not give birth to Jesus).

The SAME enmity exists between the woman and the serpent as exists between their respective seeds. If Mary was partly sinful, then she was partly with Satan and wouldn't possess the enmity of Genesis 3:15.

Luke 1:28 "Hail, full of grace", "highly favored", or whatever else... all ENGLISH translations of the same GREEK word...

the Greek "kekaritomene" is a perfect passive participle and refers to an action that has been completed in the past but has a current significance (which is why it is being referred toâ€â€thus, the Angel is saying "Hail, you who have been perfected in grace"â€â€as an action completed in the past (i.e., the Immaculate Conception... and this is relevant because the Immaculate Conception was a GRACE bestowed on Mary in order that she might more perfectly be the MOTHER of JESUS, the SAVIOR).

 

[mutzrein]

Genesis 3:15

God puts enmity (complete and radical opposition) between the woman and the serpent, and between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The seed of the woman is seen to be Jesus Christ, thus the woman is Mary (not the Church, the Church does not give birth to Jesus).

How do you make the leap from this point to Mary?
And how do conclude that Jesus was born of the seed of a woman?

 

[thessalonian]

Thess-So, you believe that Mary was immaculately conceived? Your church teaches it so I assume you do as well. Also, I take it you believe in her Assumption, that she never died like everyone else and her body physically was taken up into heaven? How about the tooth fairy? You believe in that as well? Perhaps the Easter bunny and Santa. Makes about as much sense. :roll:

TOTUS TUUS SUM MARIA...right.

The usual mockings I have come to expect from you. The Church does not teach whether Mary actually died or not. So once again you prove your ignorance of Catholicism.

Scripture backs up it's claims and anyone can choose to believe it or not. Do you think the bible is and Easter Bunny story? Strange how the RCC claims infallibility and never changes and yet, after all that time they claim to be around, it wasn't until 1950 when Picelli (Pius XII) claimed this dogma. Now there's a guy I'd really believe. After all, signing concordats wilth Mussolini and Hitler and hiding Nazi and Ustashe war criminals...yeah, right :roll: A guy so trustworthy and a church that took centuries to come up with another lie to deceive the masses. That very claim was once considered heresy by the very church that deemed it church dogma in the '50's...semper eadem!! :-?

No the Bible is not an easter bunny story. More ridiculous chiding. The accusations against Pius XII have been proven many times to be false. You trumpet all the lies you hear about Catholicism. You never met one you didn't like. Even if they contradict that is fine with you. The shotgun approach hoping that some will stick is your method. You twist the happenings of history as negatively as possible. If someone wants a balanced view of th events D46 speaks read it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenio_Pacelli

Some excerpts:


Continuing controversy surrounds Pacelli's role in overseeing negotiations for the Reichskonkordat between Germany and the Holy See. It is sometimes perceived as giving important international acceptance to Hitler's regime, though it was preceded by the Four-Power Pact Hitler had signed in June 1933. At the time, however, it was very common for the Holy See to sign concordats with many nations, which in reality had more to do with bolstering the new, 4-year-old Vatican State's own international recognition than with recognizing other regimes. Such concordats were important to the Holy See because without them the Church might be denied the right to organize youth groups, make ecclesiastical appointments, run schools, or even conduct religious services. The term "concordat" is itself misleading, as in English it appears to connote general approval and friendship, when in fact it is merely a treaty that addresses specific concerns (in this case German Catholicism), and is not a broad declaration of regimental or ideological approval.


On September 26, 1943, Nazi officials demanded of Jewish leaders in Rome 50 kilograms of gold (or the equivalent in dollars or sterling) within 36 hours, threatening otherwise to send two hundred Roman Jews to the concentration camps. Unable to come up with the full amount, the Jews needed help from a source they could trust. In his memoir Before the Dawn (reissued in 1997 as Why I Became a Catholic), Eugenio Zolli, then Chief Rabbi of Rome, recounts that he was selected to go to the Vatican and seek help. With false identification papers he got past the German guards that ringed the Vatican. Once inside, he explained the situation to Vatican officials, and they retreated to consult with Pius XII who provided the needed money. The Germans would receive their payment.


[quote:28572]
Tertullian says that we can know if God has done something by validating it from Scripture. Not to be able to do so invalidates any claim that a teaching has been revealed by God. This comes back again to the patristic principle of sola scriptura, a principle universally adhered to in the eaerly Church. But one which has been repudiated by the Roman Church and which has resulted in its embracing and promoting teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, which were never taught in the early Church and which have no Scriptural backing.

Tertullian also writes in support of oral tradition. In fact his looking to scripture is no different than what the Catholic Church does. Tertullian's beliefs if you look at them globally, rather than picking one statement fit with the Catholic views and practice. D46 will of course proof text and take out of context.

An assumption is not contrary at all to the Bible. Enoch and Elijah were assumed in to paradise. We will be reunited with our bodies in the end and assumed in to heaven. It is not against scripture that Mary could have been assumed.

[quote:28572]The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it.

Nope that is not the only reason. It was held for centuries by much of the Church and was doctrine. It was dogmatically declared by Pius XII but that does not mean it was not widely held before that. It was in fact and the very rosary that we recite proves it. This was a widespread practice long before Pius XII and in it the assuption is reflected upon.

But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God.

[/quote:28572][/quote:28572]

Perhaps you would like to prove this point. It is more twistings of history. What we have is a title of a writing called "The Assumption of Mary" on a list of condemned writings. We do not have to my knowledge the actual writing though we do have some that are suspected to be derived from it. The Pope does not say why the writing was condemned but if it is in fact like those that preceeded it, it is easy to see why it would be. There is NO CONDEMNATION of the doctrine of the Assumption. Simply a condemnation of a doctrine titled the assumption. So once again D46 distorts history to his advantage when, if the facts are examained it leaves one without the conclusion that he came up with. We have a document that was condemned as well by a man named Pelaguis called "On Free Will". So do you suppose that the Catholic Church condemned free will or Pelagius's version of it and something in his writing that was heretical. That is another thing. That a document is condemned does not mean that everything in it is heretical. ONly that there are things in it that are. We happend to have Pelagius's writing and so we can see why it is condemned today. But I think my point is clear. D46 uses and abuses history.

Blessings

 

[CatholicXian]

Genesis 3:15

God puts enmity (complete and radical opposition) between the woman and the serpent, and between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The seed of the woman is seen to be Jesus Christ, thus the woman is Mary (not the Church, the Church does not give birth to Jesus).

How do you make the leap from this point to Mary?
And how do conclude that Jesus was born of the seed of a woman?

Let me type out the entire verse:

Genesis 3:15 (KJV) "And 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."

"it" here is a bad translation of the pronoun in Hebrew. Mostly because many Scripture scholars can't tell from context whether this "it" is in reference to the woman, or her seed (Jesus), so they just use "it" instead of "he" or "she"... So ideally, a better translation would read "he(she) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (remember, God is speaking to the serpent). This is the "protoevangelium" ("first gospel"), because it is God's promise of Salvation immediately after the Fall.

Thus, because this prophetic text refers to Salvation (and the better pronoun to translate is probably 'he', refering to the seed of the woman), that same seed of the woman MUST be Jesus Christ. For it is He who brings Salvation. Thus, if the "seed of the woman" who brings Salvation (by crushing the head of the serpent, thus the "seed of victory") is Jesus, than "the woman" can be seen as a prophetic reference as well to "the woman" who gives birth to the seed of victory. And that woman is Mary.

Numerous commentaries will make note of the prophetic nature of Genesis 3:15 with regards to Christ and Salvation, so then we have to take the entire verse as prophetic/futuristic rather than merely parts.

I hope that helps.

 

[thessalonian]

Here is an article that refutes D46's notion that he and Tertullian would be buds on Sola Scriptura. :roll:

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm

It's silly to think that D46 and tetullian would be buds on anything. Did you know that the Eucharist on the ground brought tertullian to tears.

Once again D46, do you suppose that bodily assumption is beyond the power of God such that you should laugh and mock it? You do expect your body to be resurrected don't you? I guess it's just the assumption of Mary's body that you have something against.

Blessings

 

[fatboyluis]

the only thing, that just makes it sooo simple, i just think if God Himself was to be born into this world then i dont think he could of been born of a woman that was sinful,
she would have to be FULL OF GRACE to conceive Jesus,

and cos shes sinless, she obviously doesnt die, lol adam and eve were sinless and immortal
so how could the Mother of God die?

God Bless u all

 

[HisFriend]

Here is an article that refutes D46's notion that he and Tertullian would be buds on Sola Scriptura. :roll:

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm

It's silly to think that D46 and tetullian would be buds on anything. Did you know that the Eucharist on the ground brought tertullian to tears.

Once again D46, do you suppose that bodily assumption is beyond the power of God such that you should laugh and mock it? You do expect your body to be resurrected don't you? I guess it's just the assumption of Mary's body that you have something against.

Blessings

One has to wonder why Michael was battling Satan over the body of Moses and what Michael intended to do with it.

I also heard some Jews had a crazy notion regarding an Assumption of Moses or something. Origen seems to have heard about it too. I guess those Jews didn't know such a concept had not been invented by the Catholic church yet.

 

[D46]

You people never cease to amaze me. There's definitely, and now I'm sure, Jesuit influence here-no doubt about it. No average Catholic could come up with all the justification in the world and twist history and the Scriptures that wasn't trained by someone other than going to mass once a week. I lived with a former Catholic for 18 years and neither she nor her family knew one fourth of what I see written in these forums. I'm just above over debating with Romish heretics and know in my heart you will never come into a knowledge of the truth. You have been put on REJECT!

1Timothy 2:4-6 (KJV) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Mary is no mediator or co-redeemer. Never was she bodily assumed into heaven. Lies of the Catholic church to perpetrate more lies and deceit. Well did the scriptures speak of you...

1Timothy 4:1-3 (KJV) 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; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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.

2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest (twist), as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Galatians 1:6-9 (KJV) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. 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.

Matthew 23:13 (KJV) But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mark 7:6-9 (KJV) He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 (KJV) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Galatians 1:8 (KJV) 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.

1 Corinthians 16:22 (KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

...Even so, come Lord Jesus.

 

[thessalonian]

You people never cease to amaze me. There's definitely, and now I'm sure, Jesuit influence here-no doubt about it. No average Catholic could come up with all the justification in the world and twist history and the Scriptures that wasn't trained by someone other than going to mass once a week. I lived with a former Catholic for 18 years and neither she nor her family knew one fourth of what I see written in these forums. I'm just above over debating with Romish heretics and know in my heart you will never come into a knowledge of the truth. You have been put on REJECT!

:multi:

Yes, I am sure it is frustrating for you when you can't dupe aver joe street Catholic with your twistings and distortions.
Apparently D46 is having trouble backing up his information. D46 has left the building. Too bad. I was enjoying the lopsided discussion on The Tracates of the Assumption of Mary of which he evidently has done no research on his own and has just parroted what he has heard. :-D D46 has left the building.

Jesuit Zombie :o

 

[Vic C.]

CatholicXian, you are correct in saying the "it" in Genesis is Jesus, the seed, (literal translations do insert 'He' there) but it is RC doctrine that insists the woman is Mary. A thorough investigation of how the word woman is used in prophecy, suggests woman is Israel. Revelation ch.12 is a prime example. Yes I know RC teaches that woman is Mary also, though that notion overall, contradicts Scripture.

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Mary never spent this amout of time in the wilderness, but in End Times, "Israel" will. A "a thousand two hundred and threescore days" is, guess what... three 1/2 years; the entire second half of Daniel's 70th. week.

------------------------------------------------------------
D, don't be overly concerned with the knowledge of our RC brethern, they are either coached or trained by RC apologetics or are apolgetics themselves. Also, there are plenty of RC apologetic sources on the Web.

One more thing... the "average" christian in general knows little in the area of apologetics either.

 

[HisFriend]

CatholicXian, you are correct in saying the "it" in Genesis is Jesus, the seed, (literal translations do insert 'He' there) but it is RC doctrine that insists the woman is Mary. A thorough investigation of how the word woman is used in prophecy, suggests woman is Israel. Revelation ch.12 is a prime example. Yes I know RC teaches that woman is Mary also, though that notion overall, contradicts Scripture.

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Mary never spent this amout of time in the wilderness, but in End Times, "Israel" will. A "a thousand two hundred and threescore days" is, guess what... three 1/2 years; the entire second half of Daniel's 70th. week.

------------------------------------------------------------
D, don't be overly concerned with the knowledge of our RC brethern, they are either coached or trained by RC apologetics or are apolgetics themselves. Also, there are plenty of RC apologetic sources on the Web.

One more thing... the "average" christian in general knows little in the area of apologetics either.

Actually, Rev 12 does not identify a specific woman because its intent is for you to see the pattern of both Mary and Israel and creation there.

I wonder how long Jesus and Joseph were in Egypt. Maybe... three and a half years.

As far as I know the RCC does not say "Rev 12 typifies Mary but NOT Israel."

 

[Vic C.]

I wonder how long Jesus and Joseph were in Egypt. Maybe... three and a half years.

As far as I know the RCC does not say "Rev 12 typifies Mary but NOT Israel."

Yeah, I have run across that belief before, even here on these forums.

I don't actually consider Egypt the wilderness. I also won't speculate as to how long they were there. The Bible does not say but it does leave a gap in Jesus' life that surpasses three 1/2 yesrs.

On the other hand, there is prophecy that points to "Israel" running and hiding for cover once the Satanic persecitions begin. We know from scripture that this persecution begins about midpoint in Daniel's 70th. week. That leaves 3/1/2 years until the end of the "week"... and the return of Christ fos His Chosen ones and to regain His reign here on earth.

 

[HisFriend]

I wonder how long Jesus and Joseph were in Egypt. Maybe... three and a half years.

As far as I know the RCC does not say "Rev 12 typifies Mary but NOT Israel."

Yeah, I have run across that belief before, even here on these forums.

I don't actually consider Egypt the wilderness.

Doesn't matter if you do; Israel did.

 

[Vic C.]

I wonder how long Jesus and Joseph were in Egypt. Maybe... three and a half years.

As far as I know the RCC does not say "Rev 12 typifies Mary but NOT Israel."

Yeah, I have run across that belief before, even here on these forums.

I don't actually consider Egypt the wilderness.

Doesn't matter if you do; Israel did.

Please show me where "Israel" calls Egypt a wilderness?

As a matter of record, here are the Hebrews asking the King of Egypt for permission to GO to the wilderness for a sacrifice to the Lord. BTW, it was a three day journey from Egypt.

Exo 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

Exo 14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?

Just read Exodus. If that doesn't convince you they didn't think of Egypt as the wilderness, you can't be convinced. :-?

 

[HisFriend]

I wonder how long Jesus and Joseph were in Egypt. Maybe... three and a half years.

As far as I know the RCC does not say "Rev 12 typifies Mary but NOT Israel."

Yeah, I have run across that belief before, even here on these forums.

I don't actually consider Egypt the wilderness.

Doesn't matter if you do; Israel did.

Please show me where "Israel" calls Egypt a wilderness?

As a matter of record, here are the Hebrews asking the King of Egypt for permission to GO to the wilderness for a sacrifice to the Lord. BTW, it was a three day journey from Egypt.

Exo 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

Exo 14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?

Just read Exodus. If that doesn't convince you they didn't think of Egypt as the wilderness, you can't be convinced. :-?

Vic, you need to learn to place things in the perspective of time. Of course, the wilderness was not Egypt when that was their home.

 

[CatholicXian]

CatholicXian, you are correct in saying the "it" in Genesis is Jesus, the seed, (literal translations do insert 'He' there) but it is RC doctrine that insists the woman is Mary. A thorough investigation of how the word woman is used in prophecy, suggests woman is Israel. Revelation ch.12 is a prime example. Yes I know RC teaches that woman is Mary also, though that notion overall, contradicts Scripture.

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Mary never spent this amout of time in the wilderness, but in End Times, "Israel" will. A "a thousand two hundred and threescore days" is, guess what... three 1/2 years; the entire second half of Daniel's 70th. week.

The Church also embraces the representation of the Church in the passage from Revelation. Though, looking at the verse symbolically, Mary did "flee" when she and Joseph fled to Egypt with Jesus as a child... so the interpretation does not entirely contradict Scripture.

The passage is Genesis, however, cannot, in any manner be the Church because the Church does not give birth to Christ (the seed of victory).