Whats the beef between RCC and Baptist anyway?

Hi Dr. Bob,

You asked, "Mary somehow can mediate between you and Jesus in heaven? Chapter and verse?"

Syllogism:

1. Major Premise: The Davidic Queen Mother intercedes on behalf of the subjects of the kingdom before the throne of the king because she holds the office of the Gebirah (Hb. for "Great Lady").

2. Minor Premise: Mary is the Queen Mother of the New Covenant, what is a restoration, renewal, and elevation of the Davidic Covenant God established with King David in 2 Samuel 7.

3. Conclusion: Mary, as the Davidic Queen Mother, intercedes on our behalf before the throne of God.

 

What exactly does this mean, "we have no authority on which to debate"? How do we acquire the authority on which to debate?

 

Let us see what is really going in in Matthew 9

You see, the healing of the man with palsy did not take place until after the scribes accused Jesus of Blasphemy for saying the man's sins are forgiven.

Yes, Jesus did acknowledge those who, in faith, brought the sick to Jesus for healing, but He healed the man because of the scribes reaction to Him telling the sick man his sins were forgiven.

Furthermore, this story is not about the faith of the delivery system but rather the power of Jesus to heal, and a demonstration of "who Jesus really is". The scribes called Jesus a blasphemer, so in order to demonstrate His power He healed the man. The delivery crew, was incidental to the story.

 

OK! show us all in the scriptures, the only evidentiary source we have, where God impregnated Mary by the same means that a human husband would impregnate his wife. Then maybe, just maybe you will be able to convince us that God took Mary to be his wife in Holy Matrimony, to have and to hold until "death do us part".

I would remind you to keep in mind that Jesus told us that God the Father is spirit! To deposit sperm into a female vagina one would need the means, and Spirits simply do not have that means.

 

Can a human be anything but human regardless of glorification?

 

Another myth of the Catholic church! Take a human and raise that human to the nth power and it becomes something more important to deity than deity itself. From totally depraved fallen mankind to the Queen of Heaven...Amazing!

Seems to me the Queen of Heaven is the Bride of Christ and not Mary the mother of Jesus.

 

If it matters How I use words, then it holds true that it matters how you use words, and you are quite indiscriminate in your use of words as seen in your post in the paragraph following this one.

 

Raising Mary, a human vessel used by God, to the nth power, does not change her from human to deity. Such exaltation of humanity by humanity does not make it so. It does however place a millstone around the neck of those doing the exalting of mankind.

 

Hi Yelsew,

Wow! 6 posts in a row! That's impressive.

You wrote, "Raising Mary, a human vessel used by God, to the nth power, does not change her from human to deity."

No Catholic on this board has claimed, does claim, nor will claim that Mary has been changed from human to deity. We claim that she has a role in the New Covenant, which corresponds to the foretype in the Old Covenant. This is a claim, presented in my above Syllogism, which has been logically proven from the Bible, unless you would have the generosity to attack either Premise through proper argumentation.

We also claim that she partakes in the divine nature by virtue of participation as all Christians do - even at this very point in time - according to the words of St. Peter in 2 Peter 1:4: "you may come to share in the divine nature".

 

OK! show us all in the scriptures, the only evidentiary source we have, where God impregnated Mary by the same means that a human husband would impregnate his wife. Then maybe, just maybe you will be able to convince us that God took Mary to be his wife in Holy Matrimony, to have and to hold until "death do us part".

I would remind you to keep in mind that Jesus told us that God the Father is spirit! To deposit sperm into a female vagina one would need the means, and Spirits simply do not have that means.

What a sad, confused little person you are. God does not have to use sperm. That is merely the delivery system. What the male gives the female is his life. The sperm has within it the life force of the male. Combined with the life force in the egg, a human being is the result.

But God is above that. He did not have to use sperm to deliver His life force. He is beyond the means, but the principle and concept is nonetheless the same -- the covenant head (male) gives to the covenant helpmeet (female) His life. We know that God did that because nine months from the time that God shared His life force with Mary, our Savior was born in the flesh.

Try thinking beyond the literalist, Bible only mentality of a Fundamentalist, okay?

 

Dr. Bob --

The Bible has no authority except that which the Catholic Church gave to it. Prior to the Council of Chalcedon and the canonization of the Scriptures, there were many many writings extant which claimed the authority of God over the lives of believers. But when the council met, many of these writings were discarded as spurious, and

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DECIDED WHAT WAS SCRIPTURE AND THEREFORE AUTHORATIVE AND BINDING

And then, 1500 years later, you Prots had the audacity to actually remove 7 of those books you didn't like. You TAMPERED with the Word of God!!

And you accuse us!!!

Give me a break!!!

And BTW - as Carson so wonderfully pointed out, the Bible doesn't alway state point blank things like "Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit" Sometimes you have to take concepts and bring them to their logical conclusions.

 

No Catholic on this board has claimed, does claim, nor will claim that Mary has been
changed from human to deity. (Carson Weber)

It is quite interesting that God treated Her as one would
treat a spouse. He shared His life-giving seed with Her and
brought forth life from Her womb. Sounds like a wife to me in every
facet of the meaning. (Catholic Convert)

Comparing the testimonies from Carson and C. Convert, I can now assume
that God had sex with a human. And the pope; being of higher acclaim than
Mary, must also be the result of God's sex with his mother. Imagine all the bishops,
cardinals, thousands of priests etc......God must be busy .

How's my Catholic Indoctrination going, guys ?
Am I going to make a good one ?

Pax too.

 

And the pope; being of higher acclaim than
Mary, must also be the result of God's sex with his mother.

Lost yer meds again, eh Singer. Tell me, how does it feel to be so delusional in your hatred of the Church that you can't even read?

Imagine all the bishops,cardinals, thousands of priests etc......God must be busy

Yeah, you go ahead with your smarmy little insults against our Lord's Church. Just remember, you WILL be facing Him one day to answer for your insults.

 

Think so, C.C. ?

But then you could be wrong of course.

 

You say that "the covenant head gives to the helpmeet". That does not happen with two humans, so why do you say it happens with deity and human. When humans have coitus and the male ejaculates into the female, the female rejects all of the ejaculate. The female receives none of the male, it is all expelled by the female, none of it penetrates into the female body. The ovum that the female produces is released from the female ovary, free-floats into the uterus and "attaches itself" to the uterine lining which is routinely expelled every menstrual cycle unless the female becomes pregnant, in which case the uterine lining, the placenta, then becomes the incubator for the newly conceived life for the next nine months.

The male sperm does nothing to the female, the female simply rejects the male stuff, but the sperm does impregnate the "free-floating egg". The impregnated ovum within the female is a new life, separate from the female from the time of conception. Yes, it is reliant upon the mother for nourishment and protection, but it is a separate living being that will at the proper time be expelled from the womb. Once birth has taken place, nothing of that life is left in the mother, it all gets expelled, except the emotions associated with the relationship between mother and child. Nothing of the sperm donor, nothing of the resultant life, remains in the mother after the birth of the child. The mother's body then prepares itself to be ready for the next impregnation.

In light of that simple explanation, please tell us how God made Mary his wife by causing Mary to conceive! God involved Joseph the human male to whom Mary was betrothed to be married, God GAVE Mary to Joseph and Joseph to Mary for Marriage. Are you claiming then that God is a bigamist? Are you claiming that God violated his own set of rules regarding humanity? Are you saying that God who is spirit requires a mortal, flesh and blood human wife? Get real my friend. The only Bride of Deity is the Bride of Christ whom we all can agree is the collective of redeemed spirits of Humanity.

Now, I trust that you will recognize that what I have said here is not contained in the bible, but is rather, the way that God made man, "male and female were they made". Yes, it is all 'fundamental' to humanity found in Humanity 101!

We know that the Power of the father came over Mary and she conceived, and the new separate life within her was the HOLY Son of God. We know that Joseph and Mary lived together as husband and wife, and we know that scriptures say that Jesus had brothers, which would mean that Mary had other children presumably by Joseph thus ending Mary's virginity. Even so, if Joseph and Mary, even once enjoyed coitus, Mary would no longer be a virgin. It does not take a pregnancy to end virginity, only male penetration of the female vagina. Living together under the same roof as husband and wife is sufficient for us to conclude that sexual activity is involved. By denying that you deny the very essence of human sexuality and the way that God made us. Now get to 'splainin' your reasons for thinking that God married Mary and made her His wife. You know it does not take a marriage to produce a child!

 

Bob, show us where that Protestant delusion is in the Bible (and of course, it isn't)!

What silly demands you guys make while making hypocritical folly! Your sole standard of Proof doesn't even define anywhere within its pages just what books we should include as our sole authority.

I've been trying for two weeks to get any Protestant to show me how it is you can claim the Bible alone has sole authority in matters such as this, and just what it is you base your infallible assessment on.

Simple question for you Bob,
The original KJV had the deuterocanonicals, they were subsequently removed, Was the commitee to include the deuterocanonicals inspired by the Holy Spirit to include them?

Show us in scripture the list of the books to include (that is a matter of the faith is it not?)

Everything that we disagree on really boils down to the discussion of authority. The Protestant HAS to appeal to the Bible as the sole authority yet can't prove something as simple as defining the actual canon of the bible by the bible.

Check out the thread titled "Extention of Inerrancy of Scripture.. to see just what mental gymnastics Protestants must go through to just pass go.

 

Steven III, the same could be said for the Catholic.

Typically arguments such as the eternal virginity of Mary fall flat in light of non-biblical evidence, that which is normal and accepted for and by man in accordance with biblical premise of how God made us. Another is Mary being the "wife of God". There is no biblical support for such and no evidence that such a premise may exist.

There are many more examples of dogma that simply stated are not supportable in scripture and have no foundational support in nature. In other words, DOGMA that is a figment of the imagination of humans.

Therefore we use the Holy Scriptures assembled by the Catholic church, to be the 66 books commonly called the bible. We accept the additional books refered to as the apocrypha as 'extra-biblical' writings, and if they were commonly available, we would also accept the other first century writings as 'extra-biblical' writings of "bible times authors", though not necessarily "Holy Spirit inspired". These other writings have not, until the last two decades of the 20th century (the internet age), been readily available to any who are not "authorities" in the Catholic church. Therefore they are not commonly found in Protestant libraries and seldom are they referred to by expositors of the bible. Therefore they are not "Traditions of the Church" because they have not been available or accepted.

I have known that such exist for several decades, and I have under my own doing, polled many Catholics about those non traditional writings and the results of my polling is that 98% of Catholics know nothing about them or their contents either! The Book of Thomas for example is known to exist, but no one can extemporaneously quote from it.

Therefore, Bob is correct in his statement, because we do not have "common ground" outside the commonly held scriptures.

 

Bob is correct. If one does not have the same standard, measure or rule he cannot resolve OBJECTIVELY his differences. OBJECTIVE TRUTH IS FOUND ONLY IN THE WORD OF GOD. Personally, this is the precise reason I use no other source as authority for doctrine or practice. Without the pleanry, verbally inspired static standard of the new testament, MEN CANNOT KN0W OBJECTIVE DIVINE TRUTH. John 17:17.
If you want subjective opinion or bias ABOUT the truth just consult any theologian who is bound to his creed books and articles of faith, or his loyalty to a council or religious governing body.
Of course, these governing bodies and creeds are not authorized in the static standard of truth. It reminds me a lot of the children of Israel who wanted a king like all the other nations. God let them have it their way. However, in so doing they had rejected him. I Samuel 8:6,7.

 

Who tampered with what?
There is far more evidence that it was the Catholics that tampered with the Bible on this one. Jerome was totally against putting the Apocrypha into the Latin Vulgate. No Hebrew Old Testament has the Apocrypha contained within its holy writ. The canon of the Old Testament was closed before those forgeries were ever written, and yet they claim to be part of the Old Testament. Fraudulent books, that is all they are.
DHK