Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Mary was sinless -- so get over it. (Part II)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 8601-8625 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:46:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:48:03 PM PDT
Hello dear Cheri,
At least she didn't suffer if she went so quickly. Yes, there's always a rosary said, it will be very nice. We were going to go fishing this morning and ended up just visiting with neighbors on the beach again. No bar-b-que today, we made hot pastrami, swiss tomato and grilled onion string sandwiches instead.
Have you gotten much interest on your house? I know that now is a difficult time to sell, but homes are selling if priced right.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:53:54 PM PDT
I'm not certain why you continue to post this same thing to me repeatedly on purgatory Matthew. I have no personal information to add to it, other than NDE testimonies that I have read. The catholics record that they went to purgatory whereas Christians are met by Jesus. I was taken with a Buddhist who died, I'm assuming that he hoped to see Guatama Buddha, but was lovingly greeted by Jesus and was granted to come back and finish his life. He renounced Buddhisitic philosophy and became a follower of Christ and servant spreading his testimony.
Peace to you also.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:56:35 PM PDT
Do you read Sacred Scripture much Matty?

Mark 6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:01:53 PM PDT
John 2:1:12
After this, Jesus went down to Capernaum-he, his mother, his brothers, and His Disciples-and they remained there for a few days.

John 7:3 ,5
So Jesus' brothers told him, "Leave this place, and go to Judea so that your disciples can see the things that you're doing.
Not even his brothers believed in him.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:03:57 PM PDT
Oh good..so you do understand that the Jews have never included Macabees I, II as well Sirach in their Canon. I'm glad I could help you Barbara.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:18:55 PM PDT
Yes Jose, some people think...and those people said...and this group believes....so and so holds....such and such thinks....I chose to believe a far Higher Authority Who stated His Truth sufficiently. I never have to "pretend absolute knowlege as Jesus sent me the Holy Spirit as He Promised.

St. Vincent of Lerins
"..since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? ...

First by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not that the Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion, take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church's belief, especially in those articles on which the foundations of all Catholic doctrine rest.'

See in the 5th century the church did not have a Mary Assumed or Immaculately born, as she never was. I have shared so many of the ancient fathers teachings on her not having an immaculate birth and some of them even taught that she had sins.
These are man made innovations which have been previously 'rejected' in the Church's historical tradition. I hope you can understand my loyalties to Christ and not insane mad men of these latter times (150 yrs appx). Remember these same men who text lifted both Scriptures and Patristic teachings in order to accomidate themselves of previously rejected theories made dogma were very underhanded and abusive to their Bishops at these Vatican Councils and I believe at best they are Anti-Popes-but most likely-Anti-Christs.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:26:17 PM PDT
Cheri says:
She took the pictures yesterday and I thought she was going to list it right away. I just checked and it isn't there, so maybe tomorrow.

Please be praying such a huge week coming up. Tomorrow we hope to get something going to push things on the divorce, a possible court date Friday. Then the service and trying to show the house. My fibro is acting up which makes my back so much worse but God has seen to give me the strength I need each day.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:39:21 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Pearls,

"I shared so many of the ancient fathers teachings on her not having an immaculate birth and some of them even taught she had sins..."

Yes Pearls, but your problem is your failure to interpret the facts correctly. As long as their views are not part of the Church's formal and binding truths, their views remains as "private" views of individuals. That includes the views of Popes.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:42:22 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Pearls,

"Hegessipus is taken very seriously as a historian by many, but of course his testimony that James and Jude are the Lord's brothers according to the flesh presents the RC dilemnas...

No dilemna. Hegessipus says the heretics were claiming that James and Jude are the Lord's brothers of the Lord "according to the flesh" Hegessipus never said he believed it, he merely says it was the heretics who said it.

You still aren't able to properly interpret the facts Pearls?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:48:19 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Pearls,

"You just found the reference in Schaff's writings a week ago or so ago....."

Yes, I noticed you had accused Hgessipus of claiming that James and Jude were the "brothers of the Lord according to the flesh...." You even provided the quote from his writings.

Then, I went directly to the source. And that is where I found out your error. Hegessipus writes that it was the heretics who were claiming that James and Jude were 'brothers of the Lord according to the flesh" as a way to put them to death with the Romans.

You, unfortunately, by following writers like William Webster and Dave Hunt, do not present the true context, and continue misrepresenting the historical facts.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:54:39 PM PDT
Lily says:
Why hasn't Amazon deleted his post? It's thoroughly disgusting!

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:17:23 PM PDT
Jose deviously remarks "Finally !" when I have maintained this same all along and never once claimed to be a Greek scholar and you know this. The reason you are so very offended that I do regularly present the Greek is because it always refutes your bad and errant theology Jose.

" Then why do you write as if you were one, pretending to know what you do not, and what everyone apart from bias-minded people like you, still see as a controversy? "

Because Scripture is clear to me, no matter how matter how many prots or catholics you can dig up to declare it is not "air tight" . I do understand that it is air tight when combining Scripture, Historians testimonies and the fathers of the Church's teachings on this matter-very clear indeed.

Historian Julius Africanus (CE 160-CE 240) wrote:

"Herod, who has no drop of Israelitish blood in his veins and was stung by the consciousness of his base origins, burnt the registers of their families...A few careful people had private records of their own, having either remembered the names or recovered them from copies, and took pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic origin. These included the people...known as Desposynoi because of their relationship in the saviour's family."

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. "

The god of this world is Satan Jose. Tell me truth in all your years of defending man made dogma's warring against Christ and His Word, have you never had that tug at the soul letting you know that you are not serving Christ?

Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word.
Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas' cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him);
The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsios or sungenis in reference to Jesus brothers. This would be neccessary for Catholic doctrine to be true,

John 1:41 He *found first his own brother Simon, and *said to him, "We have found the Messiah"

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household."
Matthew 13:55 >>

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3756 [e] ouch οὐχ not
3778 [e] houtos οὗτός this
1510 [e] estin ἐστιν is
3588 [e] ho ὁ the
3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the
5045 [e] tektonos τέκτονο;;ς carpenter
5207 [e] huios υἱός son
3756 [e] ouch οὐχ [Is] not?
3588 [e] hē ἡ the
3384 [e] mētēr μήτηρ mother
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ of him
3004 [e] legetai λέγεται;; called
3137 [e] Mariam Μαριὰμ Mary?
2532 [e] kai καὶ and
3588 [e] hoi οἱ the
80 [e] adelphoi ἀδελφοP54; brothers
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ of him
2385 [e] Iakōbos Ἰάκωβο`2; James
2532 [e] kai καὶ and
2501 [e] Iōsēph Ἰωσὴφ Joseph
2532 [e] kai καὶ and
4613 [e] Simōn Σίμων Simon
2532 [e] kai καὶ and
2455 [e] Ioudas Ἰούδας Judas?

Matthew 1:23-25

As clear as if it said, "kept a virgin until wedding day."

24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Of the 20+ times "Jesus brothers" are referred to. NEVER are they called cousins or relatives. How could the Holy Spirit say it to make the fact any clearer?

John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.

Hebrew marriages at the time included the betrothal period, before they co-haibitated sexualually. Thei betrothal confirmed the marriage as a valid contract, which would be consummated when the second stage of the erusin marriage began.

The angel assured Joseph that Mary had not had extra-marital sex with another in order to become pregnant as he thought of her. So thus reassured, Joseph,
"being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Mat 1:24, 25)

The phrase, "before they came together," creates a very rocky road to for you claiming a lifetime virginity for Mary. The phrase "knew her not till" is translated from the Greek words,

ginosko{ghin-oce'-ko}, translated "knew," is a "Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman." (Strong's Lexicon #1097)

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:18:51 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Pearls,

You need some dosage of critical thinking:

You said "Ecumenical Council of the Church A.D 695 "...For also James, the brother to the flesh, of Christ our God, to whom the throne of church of Jerusalamem was entrusted..."

(Philip Schaff, Ed. The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14"

First of all, there is no Ecumenical Council of 695. Philip Schaff explains this in his introduction. The canons came later, by Eastern theologians and bishops, which Rome considered as having "novel errors" and would not accept it.

The same Council had some bishops who did not always agree, as the following canon #1 says:

"these doctrines we assent to as the unbroken strenght of piety, teaching that Christ the incarnate Son of God is one; and declaring that hse who bare him without human seed was the immaculate Ever-Virgin, glorifying her as literally and in very truth the Mother of God"

Pg 359. Philip Schaff, volume 14. The Ecumenical Councils, second series. 1999.

The canons were called "The Canons of the Council of Trullo" in 692 A.D.

Always glad to sort out your historical errors. You can thank me at anytime.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:21:18 PM PDT
I will be praying for you Cheri and have been especially that the fibro mialgia leave you straight away enabling you the freedom to do what you will and not be held back. God Bless you mightily Cheri and may He always hold you in His loving arms!

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:26:18 PM PDT
You're failure to interpret that these church fathers were teaching the church's sacred Tradition as were the Pope' who also taught the same is further proof that you are too blind to comprehend anything except your chosen man made dogmas. You are a rejecter of Truth and teacher of demonic lies. You and I share nothing in common.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:32:52 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Pearls,

I found this treat for you. You can thank me later for it. It is accepted by both East and West in 553 A.D, as found in the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople:

"If anyone shall not confess that the Word of of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body: the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and ALWAYS a virgin, and born of her, let him be anathema.."

Pg 312. #2 paragraph.

Philip Schaff, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, volume 14. Second Series. Printed 1999. Hendrickson Publishers. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:33:56 PM PDT
Raulito says:
No dilemna. Hegessipus says the heretics were claiming that James and Jude are the Lord's brothers of the Lord "according to the flesh" Hegessipus never said he believed it, he merely says it was the heretics who said it. "

Please present your "facts of proof" Raul, as the appx hundred studies from scholastics that I have read on this ancient writing of the church not a one of them sees Hegesippus as not recording what he relays is accurate testimony. You "alone" see this new find for 'you' as saying once again the opposite of what it actually presents.

The spiritual blindness for religous perverts really sucks. The Jews share your delimna per God.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:40:49 PM PDT
I don't know Lily, that was a dispicable post. Last night I quoted Jesus from Revelation and the bot deleted it I believe because two words were used together, "children" and k-i-double toothpicks! :) I don't know how else we can quote His statement but directly. I also understand that in this world today a site like this cannot leave that combination up in case it is something else.
How's your Mum today?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:45:38 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Pearls,

You said "Please present your "facts of proof..."

I did, read it. This is what Eusebius said about Hegessipus "But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Savior according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegessipus relates these facts in the following words..."

Book 3, Chapter 19, as found in Eusebius History of the Church.

The exact quote is found on pg 148, Volume 1, Eusebius, church history, Nicene and post-nicene Fathers. Second series. 1999. Hendrickson Publishers.

Hegessipus says it was the heretics who said it, not him.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 12:00:41 AM PDT
It is evidently clear why you are so threatened by Wm Webster and Dave Hunt who thoroughly 'prove" your latter-day theologies as false and further show how they fall apart at the seams one by one. The fact that you feel the need to falsely state repititously that I am a follower of these men, is quite a compliment to me! I truly understand your pathetic position.

"Raulito says
Yes, I noticed you had accused Hgessipus of claiming that James and Jude were the "brothers of the Lord according to the flesh...." You even provided the quote from his writings."

Are you able to offer an explaination for your having 'attempted" to refute my posting of Hegesippus's writings through the years for you without ever opening the Schaff books you had available to you? Or ever even having read his writings that I posted before you continually replied as though you had some knowlege about these writings that only days ago you could not find in Schaff's books and even accused me of making them up?

This really reminds me of all of the times you also pop in on my posting of John's XXII Quia Qorandum and just this year began posting that his Dogmatic assertation to the church was on his "beatific vision"...?!!! Had you ever read the multiple dozens of times that I posted his bull, you would have seen that it was on the "materia clavium" (keys) and had absolutely nothing to do with his or anybody's having a beatific vision.
You're comprehension is the worst I have ever seen in anybody before. You certainly cannot trust yourself to read in another place where Hegesippus mentions "heretics" and so you stick Hegesippus' documentation on Jesus's brothers into the mouths of heretics???
At first you stated that this was so the emporer could kill the brothers of Jesus, then I pointed out to you that he not only did not kill them, he was in fear of themon acct of their brother who Rose from the dead. He wanted nothing further to do with these men and did not restrain nor kill them.

Really Raul, you must get quite a little kick taking up peoples time on these threads trying to show you facts when you so clearly do not grasp nor accept them. You are a complete mash of religious perversion, paganism, dogmatic blindness and really what appears to be senility with regard your impoverished comprehension. You can only hope for other blind souls to pat you on the back for your utter lack of knowlege matching their own.

"Then, I went directly to the source..."

Finally after 4 or 5 yrs of offering denial of it! And you still have no clue what you read.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 12:06:50 AM PDT
Trullo again, in which RC was excommunicated from Christ's Church.

I believe nothing you post and will not waste my time on anymore of your shenanigans tonight.

You could not sort out anyones historical errors Raul as you "are" a complete mass of jumbled errors and see nothing but the lies you've rehearsed and expanded upon.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 12:57:38 AM PDT
Saint Karen says:
You are right. Some people will say "anything." Just look around you...

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:20:57 AM PDT
Saint Karen says:
Since you seem so obsessed with Pearl's statement, let me help you. This is a reference from a Catholic priest.

http://christtotheworld.blogspot.com/2009/08/near-death-experience-of-catholic.html

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:32:33 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
Who says she even took "Logic 101"?

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:44:27 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
"but Roman Mary has no place in Christ's Gospel"

There's a real Mary, who's in all four gospels, Acts, and Revelation, and has OT prefigures; then there's a Protestant Mary, who isn't.

"Roman" Mary is REAL Mary.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  105
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Apr 23, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions