Careful now, don't throw your shoulder out of its socket patting yourself on the back! You aren't anywhere close to being "right" this time, much less over and over again. Why don't we go back to the posts that STARTED all this?
Wait. Remember when you said, “Going beyond what is written and building doctrine upon assumptions will always lead to trouble, regardless of denomination”? Okay, now you’re saying Mary “says as much” that she is “fallen and sinful, and in need of salvation.” She only says that Jesus is her Savior. She never says she is fallen and sinful. You’re doing exactly what you were complaining about a matter of minutes ago.
“Therefore, this doctrine created via extrapolation built upon assumptions found nowhere in scripture, scholarly no doubt they might have been, is error.”
Again, explain Matthew 2:23 by giving me an EXACT verse from the Old Testament that says EXACTLY what Matthew says or else Matthew is guilty of what you just accused others of doing. And if Matthew is guilty, but you still believe he was inspired, then what are you saying about the Holy Spirit? Do you think before you post?
88 posted on 9/17/2014 11:19:09 PM by vladimir998
“He was relying upon the Old Testament, vlad.”
State the EXACT verse he was relying on RC. If you fail, you will not only be showing that you are wrong about Matthew, but you are wrong and hypocritical about the other issue. Have at it. State the EXACT Old Testament verse, RC.
You have been provided with numerous proofs FROM the Old Testament prophets that back up the truth spoken of by Matthew including from Roamer_1 about the actual city of Nazareth not existing at the time Isaiah wrote the prophecy concerning the Messiah - who would come from a "branch" out of Jesse. There are numerous prophecies we can see that speak of things yet to come and we only know they have been fulfilled exactly once we look back. That's why your demand to show you a verse in the OT that is specifically quoted in the NT - though it CAN be done in hundreds of cases - isn't what you should be expecting to see in ALL cases. That's short sighted and carnal and pointing that out is hardly hypocritical!
This line of discussion began over the RCC's claim of Mary being "sinless", let's not forget, and there ARE numerous and clearly stated verses that disprove such a claim - "oral" tradition, or not.
“You have been provided with numerous proofs FROM the Old Testament prophets...”
No. The focus has been on Isaiah 11:1. I brought up the fact that Judges 13 can also be used. There were no “numerous proofs” from the Prophets. And in no prophet’s writings does “Nazarene” actually appear.
I have been right all along. It’s just that simple.
Sinless does not require salvation or a savior. Mary recognized her need for a savior in Luke because she was born into sin as every human being ever born has been, other than Jesus Christ himself. If Mary, born of a sinful man and a sinful woman, could be born sinless and remain sinless herself, then the curse was broken before Jesus Christ was born.
Thank you for your insights, dear sister in Christ!