Featured What is the hold?

Scripture please? On the ark part, not the saving part. Any scripture at all.

 

Oh please! Of course Revelation 11 doesn't mention Mary. I didn't say it did and it's very irritating when someone represents I said something that I neither said nor implied. Very rude also and a very weak augument practice. Reminds me of how the mainstream media represents what Donald Trump says. But I digress. At the end of Revelation John sees the ark in Heaven. In the very next sentence, Rev. 12:1, he describes the magnificent woman. There is a connection, and that connection is that John is portraying Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. As for the birth canal thing, you are mixing your metaphors. Again, you are being dishonest in your argument. I say dishonest because I think you are too smart not to grasp what I have said. You know that metaphor is in Ezekiel, not Revelation.

 

There is no connection. The Ark is the Ark. It's not Mary's vaginal canal.

 

Please paste the words I used that caused you to believe I equated the Ark with Mary's vaginal canal.

 

You quoted Ezekiel 44 and you said she was the new Ark that carried Jesus into the world. Unless Mary had a C-section, God came down and out her vaginal canal. Based upon watching my children be born, I'm sure it was a bloody mess. We're the stirrups the archangels for the Ark?
Yes, this belief of yours is mock-worthy. The entire concept of perpetual virginity is silliness with no biblical merit. It's like veneration of bones...it's mystical mythology.

 

No we don't say ALONE or faith being the sole only means.

This is easy to prove the Good Samaritan that Jesus presented and the Canaanite woman who by the way is doing it on behalf of a pagan daughter.


Rejecting the love of God is an EVIL WORK. The minute that switch is flipped off then your in good works.

A person can have FAITH and still have EVIL WORK rejecting God. James gives Demons as example.


Tell me about how much you hated God the moment and instant of your salvation. When you thought to yourself well I am saved and I hate God.


Sin doesn't work. The GOOD WORK of loving God would have to be present.

Show us FAITH devoid of the GOOD WORK of loving God, then you got a claim of "FAITH ALONE".




1 Corinthians 13

13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.


He could have wrote instead abide in faith alone the greatest of these is FAITH, he could have even added it has hope and love in it.

But it would be a FALSEHOOD. We abide in the three as scripture teaches.

It is Agape that forms faith. Without the good works Love faith is not even built.

22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

Ask yourself can a imperfect flawed faith save a man? If you say yes then I don't need to hear anyone whining about folks not accepting Jesus. If you say it has to be perfect, works does the perfecting.

 

I have advanced two different doctrines of Mary on this thread: (1) her perpetual virginity, and (2) her being portrayed in scripture as the ark of the New Covenant. You have deliberately conflated them and now you mock them based on your conflation. I asked you to post the words I used that caused you to believe I equated the ark with Mary’s vaginal canal. You didn’t do it because you can’t do it. Instead, you went off and once again lied about what I have said. Mennosota, you are a liar and a fraud.. You can’t debate. All you can do is take things out of context, conflate issues, post cartoon characters and tell lies. You have yet to make even one reasoned rebuttal to anything I have said. I know there are other interpretations to the scripture I have quoted but you haven’t raised even one of them. Maybe I was wrong about you. Maybe you are really a nitwit who knows very little but would like to be a comedian. But I doubt it, your grammar is too good for that. Therefore, you are probably just plain evil. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

This is not a debate. You have no biblical stance for the views you are presenting. You have butchered the Bible to make it say whatever you want it to mean. You are pulling allegories out of a hat and calling them legitimate claims. It's like listening to a child who claims Santa Clause is on the rooftop in July because the roofers are a type of Santa. It's beyond belief to hold on to such a view and imagine that it holds any legitimacy.

 

Saving faith in jesus will be evidenced by good works, as they are the result, but no the cause nor part of getting us saved!

 

Peter, as water baptism itself does not save us, by that which it is a type of, which would be the Ark Jesus!

 

Neither viewpoint supported by the scriptures themselves, as you MUST get that from RCC erroneous not inspired traditions of men!

 

Jesus is to get the glory in all things, as mary was just the same as me, a sinner that needed to be saved by Messiah!

 

I have not butchered the Bible to make it say whatever I want it to mean. These views were held by the church for 1,500 years before anyone ever questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, As I said earlier, the Ezekiel 4 interpretation was developed by Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine--not exactly lightweights on scripture although not everyone agrees with them. Nothing I have said contradicts scripture in any way and if these views are beyond belief to you, maybe you ought to get out more.

And despite your somewhat softened stance in this post, you said, "You have no biblical stance for the views your are presenting." You know that is a lie. I gave overwhelming scriptural support for these views. Just because you don't like them doesn't give you the license to say there is no biblical stance.

 

There are no scriptures that support your view when they would be understand in their proper fashion, and not as RCC tradition has them !.
And has luther Himself state very well, We must be all doctrines upon the scriptures themselves only, regardless of what church father/council ever stated!

 

The church fathers made this one up out of thin air, Zenas. You know...they were human...they made mistakes...they butchered the Bible once in awhile. This concept of Mary is an obvious butchering of the Bible that needs to be sunk into the sea of forgetting and never remembering again. It has lead to idolizing Mary as being more than she was. What was she? A flawed human whom God gave faith to obey His will. She had other children, she enjoyed traveling and going to weddings. She was never an Ark of the Covenant.

Let such a foolish belief in Mary go. View her as the Bible actually portrays her. There is no allegory taking place in the passages you have quoted. The early church fathers are wrong.

 

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb… This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. . . . Christ… was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him.” Martin Luther.