Yes, that needed to be made clear to keep the false accusations to a minimum.
Displayed at a High School. It seems they want the students to follow this example into idol worship.
Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
It’s not just the Catholic version. The KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, among others, also reference the words of the prophet. The Holy Spirit did not inspire Matthew to reveal which prophets spoke those words
The funny thing is that you actually seem to believe the things you write
There is a lot of correct information that your “rules” don't allow.
No conditions or otherwise no deal.
But here is a little tease for you:
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there isShow scriptures proving these points are in the Bible and we can go on from there.
no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary
(or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix),
petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest,
purgatory, indulgences,
or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament...
You still did not address the rest of the post, must mean you admit your(sic) wrong.
That’s your rule (bad grammar and all), so you are wrong.
James 1-8- A double minded man is unstable in all his ways
So you admit that Catholicism is a denomination.
Contained within Christianity there are denominations, one of which is the Catholic church.
And in it are some Christians, NOT all Christians.
However, the church of Jesus Christ does include ALL Christians. That's the body of Christ.
Mormonism slates the same thing you stated and you are just as wrong as Joe Smith.
Catholics seem to use Mormon tactics a lot. Pretty Pharisaical
I don’t know, do you? If you do not believe your soul existed before you were conceived, how do you interpret this scripture? And why is my interpretation less valid than yours? Also, do you believe your mother created your soul?
Love, O2
This is about what Catholics are saying on this thread.
They are saying that GOD died on the cross and Mary conceived the second person of the Trinity.
It’s not what I believe that’s the topic and changing it to that isn’t going to address what Catholics are saying.
I am trying to understand how what Catholics say can be interpreted differently.
You state that they are saying Mary conceived the second person of the Trinity.
Isn’t this what the Holy Spirit reveals through Luke in Chapter 1:26-35?
The angel Gabriel told Mary, “thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.” When Mary asks the angel how this shall be, he answered that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
Isn’t “that holy thing which shall be born of thee and shall be called the Son of God” the second person of the Trinity?
If not, what other explanation is there?
Yes, that needed to be made clear to keep the false accusations to a minimum.
The tragic thing is that you believe the things you write. If mine are 'funny' then I'll be laughing all the way to Heaven.
Hoss
Do you agree with CCC 969? How about CCC 841? Just as you wrote a little upstream.... all you need to do is answer 'yes' or 'no'....
Hoss
Another straw man argument.
I do not accept your premise. Can you deny the premise in mine? There are obvious exceptions to yours, besides the fact that you had to insert “to normal human parents” where it does not exist in scripture. Infants, those who never obtain mental capacity to comprehend sin, etc. Some people never sin, therefore the scripture “all have sinned” is either incorrect or figurative...pick one.
Explain your objections to ‘Mary is the mother of Jesus’. If you accept this premise, you must logically accept what follows. Unless, of course, you don’t believe Jesus is God. That is what makes logic logical.
Love,
O2
So you don't think that giving birth to Jesus is remarkable? No one would be impressed? Except John the Baptist in his mother's womb. Except the angels that filled the skies and announced His birth. Except the shepherds who went and saw the child and told everyone they met about what happened
That would be remarkable to... no one.
Gamecock, over here.......
Have you informed the Holy Spirit of your low opinion of how HE decided to breath out the Scripture HE inspired? It is staggering to me that anyone would sit in judgment of the inspiration of Scripture and find it wanting.
What gall....
The fact that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, in the Flesh of Jesus, is what makes the birth of Jesus remarkable. This is the significance of the title, "Mother of God." It points to the Incarnation.
Now wait a minute, youi just said taht giving birth to Jesus wasn't remarkable. Now it is? Can you make up your mind?
*Mother of Jesus* does not point to the incarnation. The term *mother of Jesus* is not about identifying who Jesus is, it's about identifying who Mary is.
I didn’t say my soul has existed forever, just that my mother or my conception didn’t create it. God did. Sometime before I was ‘formed in the womb’.
Why all of these attempts to limit us to our human bodies and God to His human form?
Mothers give bodies to their children’s souls. They do not create the souls. That is a human requirement for our existence in this world. My soul will continue when my human body is gone. Mary as mother of God simply gave Him His human form. His being is independent of that.
God was Jesus’ Father before Jesus had a human body. Father in this context means ‘Heavenly Father’ not sperm donor or even ‘Creator’ since Jesus has also always existed. No matter how many times you accuse us of doing it, Catholics Do NOT mean ‘mother’ in this way when they refer to Mary. She provided the egg, the DNA, and the milk and love and nurturing that His human body required. That is what we mean by ‘mother’. Anyone who claims otherwise is bearing false witness.
Love, O2
Yep. A further elevation of Mary. The title "mother of God" carries way to much implication that God has been created and not eternal.
It leads to writings such as this that have not been denied by the Vatican.
Let us now spend a few moments in contemplating the glory of the Blessed Virgin. Jesus is the King of heaven; Mary is the Queen. She certainly comes next to Jesus in dignity and merit, and her glory is, therefore, next to His in splendor and magnificence. She is the woman of whom the beloved disciple speaks when he says: "And a great wonder appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."* This certainly expresses the highest glory and splendor imaginable. Human words can say nothing more; for our highest ideas of glory are borrowed from those beautiful worlds that shine above us in the blue ether. On her bosom she wears a jewel of unsurpassed splendor, whereon are written her three singular privileges. These are Immaculate, Mother of God, Virgin. These are high privileges which she alone enjoys, and which single her out at once as the Queen of angels and of men. The Eternal, by assuming flesh from her, united her to Himself by a bond of intimacy which is second only to that of the Hypostatic Union. He shed His own bright glory around her, and enthroned her at the right hand of Jesus. The Almighty Father looks upon her with complacency, as his own beloved daughter, faultless in beauty and every other perfection. The Holy Ghost calls her His own spotless and faithful Spouse, over whom the breath of sin never passed; while Jesus who, in all His glory, is still flesh of her flesh, and bone of her bone, calls her his own sweet and loving Mother. Can we conceive any greater glory unless it be that of the Hypostatic Union?
http://biblehub.com/library/boudreaux/the_happiness_of_heaven/chapter_xvi_the_glory_of.htm
Rather is seems to more accurately reflect the general attitude towards the written, inspired Word of God.
That’ll never happen......
The other explanation is that she bore the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, which says a different thing than saying she bore the second person of the Trinity.
Seems to me that I recall reading somewhere that God forbade the making of images and bowing down to them and serving them.
But that’ll never be addressed.
Yeah, but they don’t worship her, dontcha know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.