Mary of Nazareth As The Bible Defines Her

My friend, thank for your kind response.. but the immaculate conception is a lie. The seed of Adam (Romans 12-19) was by passed and thus not transferred unto Jesus’ perfect body. God has prepared a body (Hebrews 10:5).

“Why when he comes into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body have you prepared me’

My dear friend your position seems to make sense but is not biblical.. That is what it comes down to...Will you follow the Bible or tradition?

http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2009/06/just-broken-egg.html

Um, the typo cherry pick was just doing you a favor because I know you would have capitalized it if you had noticed. I’m not Roman Catholic, and I also own the entire McGee “Through the Bible Series.” What I gave was good advise about how not to undermine your argument by immediately causing offense to your target audience. They will deal with the offense first, and ignore any arguments you are making.

For example, “What part of the Scripture do you disagree with?” Is a highly offensive question. It presumes that the person being asked is in active opposition to the scripture rather than just in opposition to your particular hermeneutic. If disagreeing with your personal interpretation of scripture causes the immediate accusation of opposition to God then you are operating on the presupposition of your own infallibility. So people will immediately tune you out.

Well… it seemed like you were grilling me like a Marine sergeant would…..lol... also... I will take any and all advise given.. but, it is it wise to do so in an open forum? If you would like you may email me next time.. that would probably be better… Also if people are looking for a reason to get me they will.. No typo will stop them.

I also listen to Dr. McGee’s TTB -In Job at present-

Thanks for your reply and military service! God Bless!

FRiend, read the gospel of John for your self and put aside all of your opinions and read it objectively and see if you come up with the same reasoning as you have been taught.

Thank you, I have. And I find myself actually trending more to the Church interpretation than what I formerly held as a lousily catechized young man. It is in John that we find Scriptural proofs of such things as the divinity of Jesus. It is in John that we find the extreme sacrifice of Jesus in His Passion.

God kept it simple for humanity knowing that we would always try to interject ourselves into it.

If you read the Gospels closely, you will find that Jesus put his major efforts into teaching the Apostles. Not in writings, and not even in making every speech understandable to the crowds at large, or sometimes even the Apostles specifically. Scripture is not to be read by the untutored. The lesson of the eunuch tells us that.

The Apostles were... Ignorant fishermen

Some of them were. Some, like Paul and Matthew were highly educated and very knowledgeable.

the elites of that day distained them because they could pistol whip any of the “intelligences” of the day in matters of the Scriptures.

They were speaking more specifically of Peter. There is much doubt as to whether Peter actually wrote 1 and 2 Peter at all. I rather doubt it myself.

Why do you think Saul (Paul) hate the first church and murdered many of them.

He was most probably a Pharisee, from Tarsus, and took a dim view of this strange cult coming from the Jerusalem area. The same view that the Council of Jamnia had of Christians in 90AD.

The Holy Spirit in them is the Power not they of themselves.

The fruits that we speak of indicate that those who oppose the Church that Jesus Christ created and the Holy Spirit commissioned are not powered by the Holy Spirit, but rather by the lord of this world.

It is there for all who truly want to know

Yes. The Church is everywhere in the world and available for everyone who seeks God.

Trust God to help you interpret the Scriptures for your self

But Scripture tells us not to interpret Scripture individually. In this you go against the word of God.

Take the challenge and see for your self..

You may wish to read John 5:39 again. You will find that it means far different from the context that you have posted this verse on your blog challenge. If you give up rebellion and come back to the Church, you will find Jesus as He meant you to find Him. The Prodigal Son thought that he knew it all, too.

The ruins of the Reformation and the rubble of the Restoration are crowded with them.

Papist pap. As if the ruins and rubble of the Roman church aren't heaped to the sky... and drenched in blood to boot.

Scripture is clear;

Yes it is.

the Church is clear.

Yes it is - and clearly *not* aligned with the Scriptures.

Those who reject the Church also reject the Creator of the Church.

You mean Constantine? I have no problem with that, whatsoever.

You don't get to make it all up as you go along.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

No sophistry here.

Sure it is. The Roman church is swimming in it.

Papist pap.

The ruins of the Reformation and the rubble of the Restoration are very clear. The Anglican Church is finished and any Christians left are crossing the Tiber or heading East. ELCA is merely determining which toilet they are swirling down. The Presbyterians and the Methodists are merely trailing in the Kentucky Derby of self-immolation of formerly Christian denominations. We Catholics remain. Faithful and true to Christ. There are no others.

Scripture is clear;

Yes it is.

the Church is clear.

Yes it is - and clearly *not* aligned with the Scriptures.

Negative. We wrote 'em and we selected 'em and we translated 'em and bring them to all of the heretic, apostate and heathen who variously appreciate them or don't.

Those who reject the Church also reject the Creator of the Church.

You mean Constantine? I have no problem with that, whatsoever.

Jesus Christ Created the Church and the Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost. Your church was created when? By whom? If I recall correctly, it was during the rubble of the Restoration sometime after the year 1900.

You don't get to make it all up as you go along.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Smoke whatever you like in whatever vessel you like. Your claim to Christianity is still wrong. The Bible is clear.

No sophistry here. Sure it is. The Roman church is swimming in it.

Do you have any examples? I cannot think of any at the moment.

I have no doubt most Catholics remain very loyal to Mary.

I have no doubt most Catholics remain very loyal to Mary.

I don't understand this statement or the context.

Clearly you do not understand John 3:16.
Who said anything about accursed? Obviously that is how your mind works.
I said we will see when we get there.
You had better check yourself...you will be held responsible
for what you teach.

thanks for the warning...
what do I not understanad about John 3:16?

YIKES!!!!

The ruins of the Reformation and the rubble of the Restoration are very clear. The Anglican Church is finished and any Christians left are crossing the Tiber or heading East. ELCA is merely determining which toilet they are swirling down. The Presbyterians and the Methodists are merely trailing in the Kentucky Derby of self-immolation of formerly Christian denominations.

Pompous NONSENSE.

... and to be expected... The Roman church is all about compromise... and she will increase as she mounts up to ride the beast.

[roamer_1:] Yes it is - and clearly *not* aligned with the Scriptures.

[...] We wrote 'em [...]

GOD wrote them.

and we selected 'em

Hardly. the selection of the canon was a very organic process. Your seal upon them means nothing.

and we translated 'em and bring them to all of the heretic, apostate and heathen who variously appreciate them or don't.

Bah. The lion's share of the time, the Roman Church fought to keep the Word from being read or owned in the vulgar tongue - and that evidence ABOUNDS.

God went Open Source (as was His intent all along) - you don't have authority over the Word anymore.

Jesus Christ Created the Church and the Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost.

While true, that has little to do with the Roman Church.

Your church was created when? By whom? If I recall correctly, it was during the rubble of the Restoration sometime after the year 1900.

Then you recall incorrectly - I follow Christ... as I ought.

What is particularly foolish is your insistence that your history (built upon fallacy and forgery) has anything to do with truth. It is a specious argument.

[roamer_1:] No sophistry here. Sure it is. The Roman church is swimming in it.

Do you have any examples? I cannot think of any at the moment.

The OP is a perfect example. Bible Christians legitimately question The Roman position on Mary - Rightly so, as it cannot be found within Scripture... Unless one is a Roman Catholic, whereupon one seems to think they have the right to twist the scripture to wring out whatever wee bit of evidence there is - In a fashion which would make a gnostic blush.

Since the evidence is non-existent, RC's fall back on the idea that Bible Christians are ignorant, as this thread, and your own posts, prove.

But that is by no means the end of it... Every claim of superiority is based upon fantasy at best, and forgery and conceit at worst.

The ruins of the Reformation and the rubble of the Restoration are very clear. The Anglican Church is finished and any Christians left are crossing the Tiber or heading East. ELCA is merely determining which toilet they are swirling down. The Presbyterians and the Methodists are merely trailing in the Kentucky Derby of self-immolation of formerly Christian denominations.

Pompous NONSENSE.

Demonstrably true. Which mainstream Christian denomination, outside of the Missouri Synod Luthers with a following larger than would fit in a hockey arena can even be regarded as Christian anymore? I cannot think of any.

The Roman church is all about compromise

I don't know what a Roman church is, but if you are referring to the Catholic Church, we are under intense attack because we don't compromise.

[...] We wrote 'em [...]

GOD wrote them.

Prove it. Chapter and verse please. Luke 1 and Revelation 1 says that you are wrong. Unless you are referring to the Torah, God did not write nor did He dictate Scripture.

Hardly. the selection of the canon was a very organic process. Your seal upon them means nothing.

Organic? The Church selected it; the history is clear.

Bah. The lion's share of the time, the Roman Church fought to keep the Word from being read or owned in the vulgar tongue - and that evidence ABOUNDS.

What is the Roman Church? The Orthodox to this day normally have their Scriptures in Greek or Church Slavonic. The NT was written entirely in Greek, by the way.

God went Open Source (as was His intent all along) - you don't have authority over the Word anymore.<.I>

Chapter and verse please, for both statements.

Your church was created when? By whom? If I recall correctly, it was during the rubble of the Restoration sometime after the year 1900.

Then you recall incorrectly - I follow Christ... as I ought.

What is particularly foolish is your insistence that your history (built upon fallacy and forgery) has anything to do with truth. It is a specious argument.

Ah, then I am correct. Your church is less than a century old and is the creation of the men of the post Restoration era.

Jesus Christ Created the Church and the Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost.

While true, that has little to do with the Roman Church.

Not sure what the Roman Church is. If you mean the Catholic Church, then the NT deals with its creation and commissioning.

Do you have any examples? I cannot think of any at the moment.

The OP is a perfect example.

Not sure what the OP is.

Bible Christians legitimately question The Roman position on Mary - Rightly so, as it cannot be found within Scripture

Specifically neither is Easter (Pascha), Christmas, or Sunday worship. It is decreed by the organization on Earth that has the authority - the Church, and based upon the often-posted Scriptural references which I can post again if you've lost track of them.

The decision to translate Scripture into Latin was a Church decree; the creation of Church Slavonic and the translation into it was a Church decree, and the effort to keep the translations as accurate as possible slowed the progress in translating to the vernacular throughout the entire world. You must remember that England was a third rate country and sparsely populated. German, French and Spanish translations abounded long before the mass production of English language versions.

Since the evidence is non-existent, RC's fall back on the idea that Bible Christians are ignorant, as this thread, and your own posts, prove.

Hardly a fallback. It merely is direct observation.

Every claim of superiority is based upon fantasy at best, and forgery and conceit at worst.

Then stop claiming superiority and come back to the Church.

[MarkBsnr:] The ruins of the Reformation and the rubble of the Restoration are very clear. The Anglican Church is finished and any Christians left are crossing the Tiber or heading East. ELCA is merely determining which toilet they are swirling down. The Presbyterians and the Methodists are merely trailing in the Kentucky Derby of self-immolation of formerly Christian denominations.

[roamer_1:] Pompous NONSENSE.

Demonstrably true. Which mainstream Christian denomination, outside of the Missouri Synod Luthers with a following larger than would fit in a hockey arena can even be regarded as Christian anymore? I cannot think of any.

Not true at all - and a false premise. The weight of Protestant Christians has long been found in non-aligned Evangelical Churches. Mainstream liberal branches are dying on the vine.

And you leave the false impression that the Roman church is somehow pristine, when by any measure, it is evident that it is not - The great extent of the Northeast is Roman- and is the most liberal and decadent portion of the entire US, not to mention the greater part of Europe, where the Roman Cathedrals are barren and empty.

I don't know what a Roman church is, but if you are referring to the Catholic Church, we are under intense attack because we don't compromise.

As are all of the conservative Protestants... I was taking a much longer view than today - Roman ecumenicism is what I speak of - and it has always compromised in order to get butts in the seats... From the Mithraic wafer god to the adoption of the "godess of heaven"... to modern day chumming up to voodoo in Louisiana and blood sacrifices in their churches in Africa...

Better for the Protestants and Evangelicals, whose wide distribution allows for folks to flee the onset of liberalism, and causes liberal churches to empty out into more conservative branches... whereupon the liberal church dies, and the conservative Church blooms.

Prove it. Chapter and verse please. Luke 1 and Revelation 1 says that you are wrong. Unless you are referring to the Torah, God did not write nor did He dictate Scripture.

Any Book of the Bible which contains prophecy contains the signature of God... It will prove to be utterly inerrant. The manner of it's transmission is irrelevant. If you wish to be catty about the difference between "inspired" and "dictated", do it with someone else.

The Prophecy validates the Word, and the Word validates the Prophecy. If it were to err, I would dismiss it in it's entirety - But it will not fail.

Organic? The Church selected it; the history is clear.

not at all. Most of the Bible, to include the NT, was accepted Scripture as early as 100AD... Long before the Roman church raised her head in service of the dragon.

What is the Roman Church? The Orthodox to this day normally have their Scriptures in Greek or Church Slavonic. The NT was written entirely in Greek, by the way.

So what? It is the Roman church I accused. And there is no doubt at their insistence that no one could translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue. For centuries it was read in Latin to the masses. How can you deny it?

[roamer_1] God went Open Source (as was His intent all along) - you don't have authority over the Word anymore.

[MarkBsnr:] Chapter and verse please, for both statements.

As to the first, the Great Commission comes to mind. As to the second, the Roman church absconded her authority in the first place, so the removal of that authority was well deserved.

[roamer_1:] Then you recall incorrectly - I follow Christ... as I ought.

What is particularly foolish is your insistence that your history (built upon fallacy and forgery) has anything to do with truth. It is a specious argument.

[MarkBsnr:] Ah, then I am correct. Your church is less than a century old and is the creation of the men of the post Restoration era.

Then you are calling me a liar? Do you believe you have some sort of insight beyond what I have declared? There are plenty of posts (surely one to you) that express my exact affiliation. Were all those posts a cover for my secret under-cover affiliation, which you have now exposed?

My point is that historicity has no leverage on truth. If it does, then perhaps you would be more comfortable joining Baal's assembly. It is far older than your own.

And furthermore, Paul said that iniquity entered the church in his day... What proof is there that the Roman Church is not the embodiment of that iniquity? In fact, there is much to prove she is exactly that... The problem with putting all her enemies to the sword for 1200 years is that there are no others surviving to be accused...

Not sure what the Roman Church is. If you mean the Catholic Church, then the NT deals with its creation and commissioning.

No it doesn't - even in it's offices, the Roman church is entirely different that the Ancient Church which Christ commissioned.

The Ancient Church had no pope, no cardinals, no magisterium, no priests... It's bishops were required to be married, had no authority except as the chief of elders... It had no nuns, monks, or orders - In fact orders were specifically taught against. But it did have Apostles and Prophets - two offices gone wanting today...

No, the Church that was formed in the beginning is not the Roman Church.

[MarkBnsr:] Do you have any examples? I cannot think of any at the moment.

The OP is a perfect example.

Not sure what the OP is.

"OP" is an Internet forum acronym for "Original Post".

[roamer_1:] Bible Christians legitimately question The Roman position on Mary - Rightly so, as it cannot be found within Scripture

Specifically neither is Easter (Pascha), Christmas, or Sunday worship. It is decreed by the organization on Earth that has the authority - the Church, and based upon the often-posted Scriptural references which I can post again if you've lost track of them.

Exactly - all pagan additions which no earthly authority had the right to "decree" - Especially the Sabbath, which is the foremost proof against the Roman Church. Traditions of men, one and all.

[...] come back to the Church.

Heh. Fat chance that I will EVER be associated with such a monstrosity. I have no stomach for it's idol worship, goddess worship, and pagan mysticism. And it is impossible for me to "come back" as I have never been affiliated with it in the first place.

Not true at all - and a false premise. The weight of Protestant Christians has long been found in non-aligned Evangelical Churches. Mainstream liberal branches are dying on the vine.

Negative. All mainstream branches are dying on the vine with the possible exception of the LCMS. Weight of Protestant Christians? They must be on a considerable diet, then. ELCA is whirling like a dervish. What Evangelical churches are you referring to?

And you leave the false impression that the Roman church is somehow pristine, when by any measure, it is evident that it is not - The great extent of the Northeast is Roman- and is the most liberal and decadent portion of the entire US, not to mention the greater part of Europe, where the Roman Cathedrals are barren and empty.

The NE was settled by the Puritans and Congregationalists. The Catholics came hundreds of years later. The Catholic settlements were really only in Rhode Island and Maryland. The Reformed were very effective in persecuting Baptists, Quakers and then Catholics. Hmmm. To this very day, even, except that there aren't a whole lot of Quakers left to hate.

As are all of the conservative Protestants

Aside from the LCMS, who?

Roman ecumenicism is what I speak of - and it has always compromised in order to get butts in the seats

The Romans didn't have ecumenism. You worshiped their gods or they killed you. Just to refresh your memory:

Jupiter - King of the Gods
Juno - Queen of the Gods
Neptune - God of the Sea
Pluto - God of Death
Apollo - God of the Sun
Diana - Goddess of the Moon
Mars - God of War
Venus - Goddess of Love
Cupid - God of Love
Mercury - Messenger of the Gods
Minerva - Goddess of Wisdom
Ceres - The Earth Goddess
Proserpine - Goddess of the Underworld
Vulcan - The Smith God
Bacchus - God of Wine
Saturn - God of Time
Vesta - Goddess of the Home
Janus - God of Doors
Uranus and Gaia - Parents of Saturn
Maia - Goddess of Growth
Flora - Goddess of Flowers
Plutus - God of Wealth

From the Mithraic wafer god to the adoption of the "godess of heaven"... to modern day chumming up to voodoo in Louisiana and blood sacrifices in their churches in Africa...

I wasn't aware that the Roman religion had spread to Louisiana. Tell me more.

Better for the Protestants and Evangelicals, whose wide distribution allows for folks to flee the onset of liberalism, and causes liberal churches to empty out into more conservative branches... whereupon the liberal church dies, and the conservative Church blooms.

Let's have the names of what you consider conservative churches and why.

Any Book of the Bible which contains prophecy contains the signature of God... It will prove to be utterly inerrant. The manner of it's transmission is irrelevant. If you wish to be catty about the difference between "inspired" and "dictated", do it with someone else.

Catty? Those are two separate things which are very different. There is a difference, for instance, between ignorant and stupid, although there are those who manage to combine them.

The Prophecy validates the Word, and the Word validates the Prophecy. If it were to err, I would dismiss it in it's entirety - But it will not fail.

Ah, the old circular logic. It cannot fail because I believe that it will not fail because it says it cannot fail....

Mental paralysis is marked with circular logic. I believe that your statement indicates a confusion of belief and knowledge. A common practice.

not at all. Most of the Bible, to include the NT, was accepted Scripture as early as 100AD... Long before the Roman church raised her head in service of the dragon.

I don't know what the Roman church is, but much of the NT was not written before 100 AD and certainly did not have enough copies to be sent around the growing Church. They did not have emails and Microsoft Word in those days. Nor Xerox machines, nor printing presses. And who copied them? 99% of the Christian converts were dirt poor and illiterate. How could they afford thousands of people all copying things out by hand?

So what? It is the Roman church I accused. And there is no doubt at their insistence that no one could translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue. For centuries it was read in Latin to the masses. How can you deny it?

Why do you keep bringing up the Roman church. I don't care about Jupiter. The Bible was written in first Greek, then Latin, which were the two languages that the whole world knew. How many people spoke English in 800 AD? Do you know?

As to the first, the Great Commission comes to mind. As to the second, the Roman church absconded her authority in the first place, so the removal of that authority was well deserved.

In other words, you have no idea, no proof, and are resorting to unsupported and, on the face of it, ridiculous statements. Certainly you have no Scripture to prove your claims.

Then you are calling me a liar? Do you believe you have some sort of insight beyond what I have declared? There are plenty of posts (surely one to you) that express my exact affiliation. Were all those posts a cover for my secret under-cover affiliation, which you have now exposed?

Out with it then. Surely not one to me. If you are not ashamed, out with it.

My point is that historicity has no leverage on truth. If it does, then perhaps you would be more comfortable joining Baal's assembly. It is far older than your own.

The point is rather blunt. The records are clear and continuous. The Church is what it says it is, and is backed up entirely with Scripture.

No it doesn't - even in it's offices, the Roman church is entirely different that the Ancient Church which Christ commissioned.

I don't care about the church of Jupiter.

The Ancient Church had no pope, no cardinals, no magisterium, no priests... It's bishops were required to be married, had no authority except as the chief of elders... It had no nuns, monks, or orders - In fact orders were specifically taught against. But it did have Apostles and Prophets - two offices gone wanting today...

It had deacons, priests and bishops. Paul was not married and he argued against marriage. Neither did Peter appear to be married during his time with Jesus or afterward. No mention of wife for any of the other apostles, or Timothy, or Stephen, or...

And careful about examining the early Church. They worshiped Christ and had Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. Do you? They venerated the Virgin Mary - St. Luke painted the first icon of Mary. Do you?

"OP" is an Internet forum acronym for "Original Post".

Perhaps you might answer my original question then.

Exactly - all pagan additions which no earthly authority had the right to "decree" - Especially the Sabbath, which is the foremost proof against the Roman Church. Traditions of men, one and all.

Ah so, Seventh Day Adventist. William Miller, who predicted the imminent coming of Jesus and was wrong so many times, he eventually tired of it was one of its illegitimate fathers. Ellen Gould White was its founder in 1860 and engaged in antiCatholic diatribe including blaming the Church for switching the Sabbath to the Lord's Day on Sunday.

Let me ask you how far into this nutty cult you are. Are you vegetarian? Do you play cards or drink?

Heh. Fat chance that I will EVER be associated with such a monstrosity. I have no stomach for it's idol worship, goddess worship, and pagan mysticism.

You do know that you are describing the SDA cult to a tee including the worship of Ellen White as the equivalent of Joseph Smith of the LDS.

Not trying to argue, but I am truly curious. What precisely is insulting to Mary about the article?