GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: LightHammer's Challenge  (Read 13063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #70 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 15:51:42 »
Yes we do actually know. A muslim, hindu, satanist, or a plain unsaved person who dies without accepting Christ will go to hell. I'm sorry if you don't like this but you will have to take it up with God.
But you don't have the right to say that fellow Christians are going to hell. No matter what disagreements we may have, you never have the right to declare that a fellow Christian is damned. That is for God alone to judge.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #70 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 15:51:42 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #71 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 15:53:13 »
She was not His mother in the same sense our mothers are our mothers. Her egg was never used. A woman can be a mother without being a biological mother. There are many women who adopt babies and are called their mothers.

Any body noticing how she is completely expounding on "mother" as "surrogate" where Sacred Scripture is completely silent on such? She is just making it up.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #71 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 15:53:13 »

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #72 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:04:54 »
She was not His mother in the same sense our mothers are our mothers. Her egg was never used. A woman can be a mother without being a biological mother. There are many women who adopt babies and are called their mothers.
That isn't what the Bible says. It refers to Mary as Jesus' MOTHER.

MODIFIED DUE TO FLAMING

Ironic, really, since the entire aim of this thread was to prove that Catholic beliefs are unsupported by Scripture.
« Last Edit: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:41:48 by JohnDB »

Offline Sinead

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Manna: 46
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #73 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:09:02 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #73 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:09:02 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #74 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:11:01 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.

The verse doesn't say all except Jesus either. It doesn't say all except innocent children who die before being able to make any conscious decisions.

Take Sacred Scripture as a whole and not pieces.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #74 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:11:01 »



Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #75 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:14:48 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.
Just as you are using human....well, I'm not sure what you're using, to come to the conclusion that when the Bible refers to Mary being Jesus' mother, it really means 'adoptive surrogate.'

Offline Loner

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Manna: 71
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #76 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:23:55 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.
Just as you are using human....well, I'm not sure what you're using, to come to the conclusion that when the Bible refers to Mary being Jesus' mother, it really means 'adoptive surrogate.'
It means that the Lord was born of Mary..she was NOT His biological mother. NOT her egg NOT any man's seed....do you get it???

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #77 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:28:47 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.

The verse doesn't say all except Jesus either. It doesn't say all except innocent children who die before being able to make any conscious decisions.



You're right.  Scripture does NOT say that Mary was a sinner.
It doesn't say that I am, either.
So, if Mary is sinless because Scripture doesn't say she was a sinner, does that make it a dogmatic fact that I'm also sinless?
Or is what Scripture says (and not say) irrelevant to you?




.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #78 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:29:06 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.
Just as you are using human....well, I'm not sure what you're using, to come to the conclusion that when the Bible refers to Mary being Jesus' mother, it really means 'adoptive surrogate.'
It means that the Lord was born of Mary..she was NOT His biological mother. NOT her egg NOT any man's seed....do you get it???

Matthew 1:20 Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord* appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.

Luke 2:21 When eight days were completed for his circumcision,* he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The creed on this very website, in the very rules:

Begotten, not made;

Jesus was not made in her, but conceived.  Mary was a biological mother.

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #79 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:33:22 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.
Just as you are using human....well, I'm not sure what you're using, to come to the conclusion that when the Bible refers to Mary being Jesus' mother, it really means 'adoptive surrogate.'
It means that the Lord was born of Mary..she was NOT His biological mother. NOT her egg NOT any man's seed....do you get it???
But the Bible says that Mary is Jesus' mother. It doesn't say adoptive mother. It doesn't say surrogate. It says that MARY...IS... JESUS'...MOTHER. I'm going to have to ask you to rev up both of your brain cells to fully comprehend this. :)

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #80 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:38:02 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.

The verse doesn't say all except Jesus either. It doesn't say all except innocent children who die before being able to make any conscious decisions.



You're right.  Scripture does NOT say that Mary was a sinner.
It doesn't say that I am, either.
So, if Mary is sinless because Scripture doesn't say she was a sinner, does that make it a dogmatic fact that I'm also sinless?
Or is what Scripture says (and not say) irrelevant to you?




.

I never said that. I said that it supports the dogma not that it proclaims it beyond a shadow of a doubt (although with Protestants anything that is clearly defined can be discarded and rationed away)

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #81 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:39:02 »
Anybody noticing how you, Lighthammer are completely making up that Mary was sinless as God? It says that nowhere in the Bible. You are using human logic to come to that conclusion. The bible says ALL have sinned. ALL have gone astray, it doesn't say ALL except Mary.
Just as you are using human....well, I'm not sure what you're using, to come to the conclusion that when the Bible refers to Mary being Jesus' mother, it really means 'adoptive surrogate.'
It means that the Lord was born of Mary..she was NOT His biological mother. NOT her egg NOT any man's seed....do you get it???

Matthew 1:20 Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord* appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.

Luke 2:21 When eight days were completed for his circumcision,* he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The creed on this very website, in the very rules:

Begotten, not made;

Jesus was not made in her, but conceived.  Mary was a biological mother.


Bump.


Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #82 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:39:59 »


Quote

You didn't provide ANYTHING.  From Scripture or elsewhere.  
Just a lot of claims.  And then some far-flung attempt to "connect" invisible dots of your own creation.   This has NOTHING to do with substantiating it "From Scripture alone."  

What you so powerfully, so boldly, so undeniably documented is that the DOGMA is entirely baseless (at least in terms of Scripture).   I could not possibly have stated this as clearly as you yourself have done.






.

I hate to bring this matter up yet again, but don't you have anything better to do than post scathing attacks against the Catholic Church?

you spend an unprecedented amount of your time crapping on it.





1.  Quote me where I "crap" on anything or anyone.

2.  Read this:  http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/anti-catholic-anti-protestant-%28especially-for-catholics-to-read%29/   Is the proverbial shoe actually on YOUR foot?

3.  How do personal flames reveal that Scripture alone substantiates the
Dogma of the Assumption of Mary?




.



1. Well, the post on this thread where you compared us to the Mormons, for a start.



1.  Searching this thread.... searching, searching..... looking for where I said "crap."  
Searching.... searching..... Nope, can't find it.


2.  Um, looking for where I "compared" the RCC and LDS denomination (as if that would be a bad thing)..... searching..... searching.....  Nope, can't find it.


3.  Searching for where "Scripture alone" teaches the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary.   Nope.  Nothing.



         


Quote
2.  I read that thread



Perhaps you are more "anti" me and my church than I am to you and yours.  If so, then the proverbial "shoe" is actually on your foot.   Let all read the thread.  It's rather stunningly obvious, I think.  





Quote
3. I'm not going to bother explaining this to you any further. Lighthammer explained to you in detail how the Assumption of Mary is supported in Scripture



No.  All that can read know what he did was make a claim and then attempt to "connect" a series of "dots" of his own creation.   He never even attempted to present any Scriptures that teach the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary.   I think that's both undeniable and obvious.  

Yes, it COULD be that in his mind, his own INTERPRETATION of some things fits his opinion.  It's fairly common (All Mormons known to me also think that their INTERPRETATION of things fits their opinion).  But the opinion of self agreeing with the opinion of self is unrelated to the issue of "Scripture alone" teaching something.  Apples and oranges.   I think we all suspect self to agree with self, that doesn 't mean that Scripture does.




Quote
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



I have better than 20/20 sight.  And I'm proficient at reading.  If our brother had verse(s) that reveal that Mary was assumed into heaven upon her death (or undeath) he would have quoted them and I would be able to both see and read them.   So would all.  







.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #83 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:51:46 »
I think the problem some people have with believing that Mary was Jesus' biological mother stems from an incorrect belief that sin passes through physical matter.  They use the same argument to say that Mary was sinful with the claim that sin passed to her through fleshy matter, and so Jesus must not have been of Mary's fleshy matter because he was without sin.

I have also encountered the claim that sin is only passed through the father's seed, and since Jesus had no human father, he did not receive sin.

The truth of the matter is that neither of these inferences are found in scripture.  Worse they are not revealed by Jesus even in Tradition.  They are made up conjectures.  Completely made up to explain something that we cannot understand.

Nothing about Mary's completely natural birth proves that she was sinful, nor does it prove that she was free from sin.  It is the work of God and His grace that miraculously preserved her from original sin.  It was also that Jesus was divine that he could also not be subject to original sin.  Original sin is not like a DNA sequence, but an affliction, basically a curse from God as a result of the original sin.  It affects the soul, not the body itself.

Jesus was impeccable because he was God.  Mary was Immaculate because of the work of God.  Neither is due to or in spite of any biological relationship.  Sin and its stain is a spiritual thing, not a material thing.

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #84 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:52:18 »
Quote
There are none so blind as those who will not see.


 And I'm proficient at reading.  





.
[/quote] Well, the majority of your reply was simply the same highly opinionated nonsense you post on every thread. As far as that last bit...while it's very nice that you can read, I was refering to your mental blindness.

Offline Loner

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Manna: 71
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #85 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 20:10:13 »
All of you RCC members have been clearly shown with scripture references that ALL have sinned..you all accept only RCC dogma and not scripture....God help you all...I'm done here..believe as you wish...I'm done here you ..satan has blinded you ::frown::

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #86 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 20:15:17 »
All of you RCC members have been clearly shown with scripture references that ALL have sinned..you all accept only RCC dogma and not scripture....God help you all...I'm done here..believe as you wish...I'm done here you ..satan has blinded you ::frown::


So Jesus has sinned?

Innocent babies have sinned?

Well after trying to float Mary as the surrogate of Christ, I don't I can be surprised by anything you guys believe.

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #87 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 20:27:38 »
All of you RCC members have been clearly shown with scripture references that ALL have sinned..you all accept only RCC dogma and not scripture....God help you all...I'm done here..believe as you wish...I'm done here you ..satan has blinded you ::frown::

And this is coming from a perdon who alledges that Mary was Jesus' 'surrogate'. What utter lunacy.

Offline Loner

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Manna: 71
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #88 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 22:19:13 »
All of you RCC members have been clearly shown with scripture references that ALL have sinned..you all accept only RCC dogma and not scripture....God help you all...I'm done here..believe as you wish...I'm done here you ..satan has blinded you ::frown::

And this is coming from a perdon who alledges that Mary was Jesus' 'surrogate'. What utter lunacy.
Exactly where did I post that Mary was a surrogate?? Get your facts straight!

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #89 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 09:58:59 »
.


IMO...


LightHammer documenting that Scripture doesn't say that Mary was sinless is not substantiation from "Scripture alone" that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary was directly assumed into heaven upon Her death (or undeath - he hasn't told us which).   His (apparent) attempt to "connect" invisible "dots" of his own imagination simply proclaims that Scripture doesn't substantiate this dogma.






.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #90 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 11:38:26 »
.


IMO...


LightHammer documenting that Scripture doesn't say that Mary was sinless is not substantiation from "Scripture alone" that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary was directly assumed into heaven upon Her death (or undeath - he hasn't told us which).   His (apparent) attempt to "connect" invisible "dots" of his own imagination simply proclaims that Scripture doesn't substantiate this dogma.






.


It is if you understand that without sin there is no death.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #91 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 12:02:48 »
.


IMO...


LightHammer documenting that Scripture doesn't say that Mary was sinless is not substantiation from "Scripture alone" that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary was directly assumed into heaven upon Her death (or undeath - he hasn't told us which).   His (apparent) attempt to "connect" invisible "dots" of his own imagination simply proclaims that Scripture doesn't substantiate this dogma.






.


It is if you understand that without sin there is no death.


1.  Yes, you did try to change the subject... Why, we weren't told.

2.  No, you didn't substantiate from Scripture alone that Mary was without sin. 

3.  Of course, you didn't substantiate from Scripture alone that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary was assumed into heaven upon Her death (or undeath - you never told us which) - you didn't even attempt to do that.  Thus, it seems both obvious and undeniable that you completely failed in what you claimed you could do.   But I appreciate such a bold, complete embrace of Sola Scriptura, it just did exactly what Protestants tend to conclude it does with this divine, new dogma of the RC Denomination.






.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #92 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 12:46:17 »
.


IMO...


LightHammer documenting that Scripture doesn't say that Mary was sinless is not substantiation from "Scripture alone" that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary was directly assumed into heaven upon Her death (or undeath - he hasn't told us which).   His (apparent) attempt to "connect" invisible "dots" of his own imagination simply proclaims that Scripture doesn't substantiate this dogma.






.


It is if you understand that without sin there is no death.


1.  Yes, you did try to change the subject... Why, we weren't told.

2.  No, you didn't substantiate from Scripture alone that Mary was without sin.  

3.  Of course, you didn't substantiate from Scripture alone that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary was assumed into heaven upon Her death (or undeath - you never told us which) - you didn't even attempt to do that.  Thus, it seems both obvious and undeniable that you completely failed in what you claimed you could do.   But I appreciate such a bold, complete embrace of Sola Scriptura, it just did exactly what Protestants tend to conclude it does with this divine, new dogma of the RC Denomination.






.

1. In order to support the Assumption of Mary you have to support her sinlessness. Simple causality.

2. The Incarnation itself is proof of her sinlessness and that is in Sacred Scripture.

3. Of course I did. I just didn't do so in the way you wanted. I knew that from the moment you started this topic that my scriptural wouldn't be as conclusive as Josiah would want and as such Josiah would act like it its not support at all. Not that such matters at all but you're predictable.

Death is not natural to man, it is an affliction of our fallen condition which proceeds from sin. Without sin there is no death. Sin can not exist in God's presence. That very same God, without restraint or yield, placed Himself inside of Mary. Putting aside the sheer miracle of something infinite dwelling inside some not infinite, you have to consider how such was even possible if Mary had sin. The properties of Mary's sin would have undone her when God unyielding overshadowed her. Light banishes all forms of darkness. The fact that she was somehow able to survive the embrace of God unrestrained means that she was special.

How was she special? Well we have other scriptural precedents of GOD residing within a host He has prepared. The Ark of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies. What made those articles special? God consecrated them holy and punished with death any who attempted to defile them. They were literally prepared sinless.

Further proof that Mary was sinless.

I could go on but I'm pretty sure you're going to just chop and screw this response and discard the obvious precedents of Sacred Scripture because it doesn't give you what you want to hear.

 
« Last Edit: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:32:51 by LightHammer »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #93 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 13:05:51 »
Quote
2. The Incarnation itself is proof of her sinlessness and that is in Sacred Scripture.
As to her sinlessness, how do you support the idea (without getting into gnosticism) that a perfect sinless GOD could not be carried and birthed by a sinful mother?

The Holy Spirit (also perfect) can dwell in us and there is none of us that has never sinned. I would submit that it was entirely possible for Mary to be a normal girl that sinned occasionally and still be the mother of Jesus.

That is something that needs to be proved in scripture that the Incarnation required a sinless vessel.  Your statement assumes this as fact.  I submit that God is bigger than that.

Offline Sinead

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Manna: 46
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #94 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 13:36:56 »
He nor any other catholic will ever be able to prove their beliefs from Scripture, only from false catholic teaching. They are brainwashed and it is very hard for a brainwashed person to see the truth unless they are seeking the truth with all their hearts.

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #95 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 13:44:59 »
Quote
Exactly where did I post that Mary was a surrogate?? Get your facts straight!
Here, among other places.

Quote
It means that the Lord was born of Mary..she was NOT His biological mother. NOT her egg NOT any man's seed....do you get it???
My friends, is there anything more pitiable than a person who makes an assertion and then brazenly denies that they made it a few posts later? Such nerve, boldness, and pure gumption wasted to such a pointless end.

Offline ChristNU

  • THE HOPE OF GLORY
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1953
  • Manna: 132
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #96 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 13:58:01 »

After reading through this thread it is obvious that the challenge made that, "I can support it with Sacred Scripture alone", has not been born out by the person making the claim. You cannot claim scriptural support on that which scripture is silent on. What is presented as scriptural support is mere extrapolations based on erroneous assumptions...which is how all bad theology develops.

You would do well to just admit that your beliefs are based not on scripture alone, but on the "special revelation" that your church claims it has been given above and beyond Gods written word. This is not a secret and it is not something that is denied even by your own church. 


 

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #97 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:04:06 »
He nor any other catholic will ever be able to prove their beliefs from Scripture, only from false catholic teaching. They are brainwashed and it is very hard for a brainwashed person to see the truth unless they are seeking the truth with all their hearts.
Our interpretation of Scripture supports Catholic teaching; I frankly don't care what your interpretation does not. (I understand that you Protestants trashed several of the Bible's books as "apocrypha" because they didn't support your interpretation; who are you to be propounding on sacred Scripture when you don't even have all of it?)


And another thing, that phrase you used, "Seeking from truth their heart". Have you bothered to stop and wonder what exactly that phrase means? IMO that pretentious, mushy-headed, and essentially meaningless happy-talk like that is what perpetuates the reputation modern Christians have of being holier-than-thou poseurs.

« Last Edit: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 15:19:19 by LightHammer »

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #98 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:22:12 »
Quote
2. The Incarnation itself is proof of her sinlessness and that is in Sacred Scripture.
As to her sinlessness, how do you support the idea (without getting into gnosticism) that a perfect sinless GOD could not be carried and birthed by a sinful mother?

The Holy Spirit (also perfect) can dwell in us and there is none of us that has never sinned. I would submit that it was entirely possible for Mary to be a normal girl that sinned occasionally and still be the mother of Jesus.

That is something that needs to be proved in scripture that the Incarnation required a sinless vessel.  Your statement assumes this as fact.  I submit that God is bigger than that.


At the incarnation, the angel referred to Mary by a new name, in Greek, kecharitomene.  It is used nowhere else in scripture.  Here is analysis of this word:

    " 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

    "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

The word, which the angel Gabriel addresses Mary by, stands for being completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.  It is a perfect passive participle and testifies to the fact that Mary has always been, is, and will continue to be endowed with grace.  But what is grace?  Grace is that power from God to withstand sin.  Kecharitomene is the name that demonstrates the Immaculate Conception, that she was endowed with perfect grace from the beginning of her existence, and would always continue to be endowed with that grace.

There is more support than just this word, for example, the enmity promised between "the woman" and "the serpent" in Gen. 3:15, as well as "the serpent's offspring" and "her offspring" (who is Jesus).  And also the fact that Jesus fulfilled the commandment to honor his mother and father perfectly.  It was within God's power to do it, it was proper for him to do it, therefore, he did it.  Finally there is a tremendous parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.   You probably can understand the implications of such a parallel better than most on this forum!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA[/youtube]

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #99 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:22:42 »
Quote
As to her sinlessness, how do you support the idea (without getting into gnosticism) that a perfect sinless GOD could not be carried and birthed by a sinful mother?

Its very simple. God could have chosen to humble Himself in a way that would've caused Mary to take Him in without bringing any harm to her. However is not what the Incarnation teaches.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ was full God without restraint or clutch. God completely. If at the moment of the Incarnation God was holding a portion of Himself back then Jesus can not be called full God. However Jesus Christ was indeed full God. This means Mary took in God in His fullness. God gave Himself to the Incarnation unreserved.

After we come to this fact it is only a matter of understanding the properties of God as an infinite goodness. We also have several instances where God unrestrained literally abolishes sin that enters His presence or defiles His consecration. (See St. Isaiah in the Throne Room and the death of Uzzah after touching the consecrate Ark of the Covenant)

It is a fact that light abolishes all darkness. God's unrestrained presence is akin to a light that is so great that it is beyond human comprehension or imagination.

Once again God gave Himself entirely to the Incarnation and thus Mary had to have been prepared especially for such a indwelling.


Quote
The Holy Spirit (also perfect) can dwell in us and there is none of us that has never sinned. I would submit that it was entirely possible for Mary to be a normal girl that sinned occasionally and still be the mother of Jesus.

That is different. God humbles Himself when He abides in us unlike the Incarnation where He gave Himself without any humbling restraints.

Quote
That is something that needs to be proved in scripture that the Incarnation required a sinless vessel.  Your statement assumes this as fact.  I submit that God is bigger than that.


Look up the Holy of Holies, that also hosted the indwelling of God. The Ark of the Covenant also hosted the indwelling of God.

The precedents are there if anyone cares about it.
« Last Edit: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 20:27:32 by LightHammer »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #100 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:28:13 »

After reading through this thread it is obvious that the challenge made that, "I can support it with Sacred Scripture alone", has not been born out by the person making the claim. You cannot claim scriptural support on that which scripture is silent on. What is presented as scriptural support is mere extrapolations based on erroneous assumptions...which is how all bad theology develops.

You would do well to just admit that your beliefs are based not on scripture alone, but on the "special revelation" that your church claims it has been given above and beyond Gods written word. This is not a secret and it is not something that is denied even by your own church.  


 

Actually no that's not it. Public revelation, i.e. what we are required to believe, ended with the last living Apostle St. John.

I have supported the Assumption of Mary with Sacred Scripture. Whether or not you agree with my support is not something I actually care about.

« Last Edit: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:36:43 by LightHammer »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #101 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:53:18 »
Can't we respond to each other in a civil Christian manner? I don't understand why certain words or phrases, that you wouldn't say to your mother, need to be used to describe one's thought's about another person's post.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #102 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 15:20:44 »
Swiss guard you have insulted me for the last time. I will have nothing more to say to you until you wash your mouth out and learn to speak like gentleman.

And calling us brainwashed is... lady-like?

Offline ChristNU

  • THE HOPE OF GLORY
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1953
  • Manna: 132
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #103 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 15:25:28 »

After reading through this thread it is obvious that the challenge made that, "I can support it with Sacred Scripture alone", has not been born out by the person making the claim. You cannot claim scriptural support on that which scripture is silent on. What is presented as scriptural support is mere extrapolations based on erroneous assumptions...which is how all bad theology develops.

You would do well to just admit that your beliefs are based not on scripture alone, but on the "special revelation" that your church claims it has been given above and beyond Gods written word. This is not a secret and it is not something that is denied even by your own church.  


 

Actually no that's not it. Public revelation, i.e. what we are required to believe, ended with the last living Apostle St. John.

I have supported the Assumption of Mary with Sacred Scripture. Whether or not you agree with my support is not something I actually care about.


I have read the entire thread and you have proved nothing with scripture. And you cannot. It is silly to even try. Your churches dogma and doctrine is founded not on sola scriptura, but on Tradition - so to try and argue from the point of sola scriptura is not only ridiculous, but impossible.



Offline Sinead

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Manna: 46
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: LightHammer's Challenge
« Reply #104 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 15:25:43 »
There is nothing rude or abusive in calling someone brainwashed. Believing in something without scriptual backing is being brainwashed catholica. It is a fact.

 

     
anything