• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mary mother of God

Jesus told His apostles,
"I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Matt. 26:29

Jesus also said,

And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.

The Kingdom came with power on Pentecost. We know the the disciples met together for fellowship, teaching, prayer and sharing the Lord's Supper after Pentecost (Acts 2:42)

We have no idea when Mary, the Mother of Jesus, died. More than likely, she shared the Lord's Supper with the other disciples considering Pentecost occurred 50 days after Jesus' death on the cross.

There is no mention of anyone eating the actual body or drinking the blood of Jesus in the NT. Imho, the bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' body and blood. There is no evidence of priests magically changing the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ in the NT.

Katie I have a thread regarding the "do this in remembrance of me" and in it I state that the apostles did 7 to 9 remembrance meals while Jesus was in the grave. Once Jesus was resurrected "the remembrance of me" meals ceased. I stated that Jesus during the 40 days he was on earth with the disciples never did a rcc mass nor did he eat his flesh and drink his blood with them.
if you get a chance give it a read.

willyah
 

chlotilde

Madame Curie
You're conflating the unamed woman supposedly caught in adultery, Mary Magdalene and Mary, wife of Joseph and mother of Jesus. Muslims go one further and add Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses. Unsurprisingly, as Mother Mary and the Magnificat are clearly modelled on Miriam and her Song.

no I am conflating the words of Christians who "overly stress" that Mary was a sinner to the point that they call her a dirty little sinner. (not necessarily from this thread, I'd have to go back and see). :)
 
Jesus told His apostles,
"I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Matt. 26:29

Jesus also said,

And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.

The Kingdom came with power on Pentecost. We know the the disciples met together for fellowship, teaching, prayer and sharing the Lord's Supper after Pentecost (Acts 2:42)

We have no idea when Mary, the Mother of Jesus, died. More than likely, she shared the Lord's Supper with the other disciples considering Pentecost occurred 50 days after Jesus' death on the cross.

There is no mention of anyone eating the actual body or drinking the blood of Jesus in the NT. Imho, the bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' body and blood. There is no evidence of priests magically changing the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ in the NT.

.
More than likely is not valid for sound scriptural doctrine. Sound doctrine is holding fast the faithful word (Titus 1:9).

(2 Tim 4:3 KJV) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
(2 Tim 4:4 KJV) And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.



The words " the Lord's Supper" do not appear in Acts 2:42. There is no mention of eating flesh or drinking blood in Acts 2:42 not even symbolically. Jesus as the resurrected Second man was with his disciples for 40 days after his resurrection.
(Acts 1:3 KJV) To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

During those 40 days they never eat flesh or drank the blood of Jesus nor did they do a RCC Eucharistic service of any kind rather Jesus spoke to them things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

I believe in no RCC doctrines whatsoever; I believe the word of YHWH-YaH in every generation instigates sound scriptural doctrine.

willyah
 
no I am conflating the words of Christians who "overly stress" that Mary was a sinner to the point that they call her a dirty little sinner. (not necessarily from this thread, I'd have to go back and see). :)

Mary was a sinner because all have sinned but Mary was also humble enough to say

(Luke 1:46 KJV) And Mary said, My soul doth magnify YHWH-YaH,
(Luke 1:47 KJV) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Only a sinner needs a Saviour.

Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Little children do not willfully sin but they will sin willfully
as adults.
(Luke 18:16 KJV) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

(Luke 18:17 KJV) Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

The sin of not believing the need to be born again of the Spirit Son Christ so as to see the kingdom of God as a little child and thereby seeing it they enter the kingdom of God.
( Acts 1:3 KJV.) To whom also he ( Jesus) showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

You have to see where your going so as to be able to enter where your going.

Being born again by the Spirit would be one of the things the resurrected Second man Jesus would have spoken about during those 40 days.

These believers saw the resurrected Second man but were yet to be born again by the Spirit at Pentecost when they would see the kingdom of God.

(John 3:3 KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

willyah

 
Last edited:

kepha31

Active Member
A fresh and enlightening new perspective on Mary, Mother of God, and her central importance in the Christian faith, from the author of the highly successful The Lamb's Supper.

In The Lamb's Supper, Catholic scholar and apologist Scott Hahn explored the relationship between the Book of Revelation and the Roman Catholic Mass, deftly clarifying the most subtle of theological points with analogies and anecdotes from everyday life. In Hail, Holy Queen, he employs the same accessible, entertaining style to demonstrate Mary's essential role in Christianity's redemptive message.

Most Christians know that the life of Jesus is foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament. Through a close examination of the Bible, as well as the work of both Catholic and Protestant scholars and clergy, Hahn brings to light the small but significant details showing that just as Jesus is the "New Adam," so Mary is the "New Eve." He unveils the Marian mystery at the heart of the Book of Revelation and reveals how it is foretold in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis and in the story of King David's monarchy, which speaks of a privileged place for the mother of the king.

Building on these scriptural and historical foundations, Hahn presents a new look at the Marian doctrines: Her Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and Coronation. As he guides modern-day readers through passages filled with mysteries and poetry, Hahn helps them rediscover the ancient art and science of reading the Scriptures and gain a more profound understanding of their truthfulness and relevance to faith and the practice of religion in the contemporary world.


You can take a peek into more of the book here:
 

chlotilde

Madame Curie
You claim the New Testament was built on the traditions of men. Please cite a single tradition of man which formed the New Testament. Be sure to QUOTE the verse.

ugh, I'm not sure how to go about this easily...

There is Divine Tradition that comes from God and the oral teachings of the Jesus and the Apostles. And most refuse to discuss anything unless we use That Tradition found in the Bible. There was a way Wharton could have easily proven his point on the Priesthood, but it would have involved what we call Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition includes the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Ignatius is one such example who was writing letters almost at the same time Paul was. And Ignatius wrote about Priesthood.

Sacred Tradition comes from 2 Tim 2:2 "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well." And it was this Sacred Tradition that helped form the Bible. Justin consulted the writings of the Early Church Fathers to see which Gospels (of the many written) the Fathers were actually preaching from. From a historical perspective, what did Christians do until the books were written and then between the death of John and the formation of Canon.
 

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Katie: when Paul was writing his letter to (for example) the Thessalonians, do you think he considered what he was writing (at the time he wrote it) to be sacred scripture in the same way that he would have considered the book of exodus scripture?

The demand to "quote a verse" to demonstrate that the New Testament was created by the church seems to misconstrue what the argument. The whole point is that there was a christian church prior to the new testament. When Paul was writing to the Thessalonians, maybe none of the four gospels even existed yet in the form we consider scripture. The question is, if you consider the texts themselves to be the only authority, how did they come to exist, by what means did they acquire that authority, and by what means do we determine which texts are authoritative, since there are other gospels which are not in the canon, as well as other epistles and ancient christian writings?

When chlotide says it was tradition that formed the canon, he is referring to the fact that the church existed prior to these texts, that they were written by Christians, and that it was the church (in various ways) which determined which texts were authoritative. The Bible didn't just appear out of thin air in the modern form.
 
Katie: when Paul was writing his letter to (for example) the Thessalonians, do you think he considered what he was writing (at the time he wrote it) to be sacred scripture in the same way that he would have considered the book of exodus scripture?

The demand to "quote a verse" to demonstrate that the New Testament was created by the church seems to misconstrue what the argument. The whole point is that there was a christian church prior to the new testament. When Paul was writing to the Thessalonians, maybe none of the four gospels even existed yet in the form we consider scripture. The question is, if you consider the texts themselves to be the only authority, how did they come to exist, by what means did they acquire that authority, and by what means do we determine which texts are authoritative, since there are other gospels which are not in the canon, as well as other epistles and ancient christian writings?

When chlotide says it was tradition that formed the canon, he is referring to the fact that the church existed prior to these texts, that they were written by Christians, and that it was the church (in various ways) which determined which texts were authoritative. The Bible didn't just appear out of thin air in the modern form.

YHWH-YaH in His all knowing foreknowledge wrote His Book from Genesis to Revelation before creation, but after creation His revealed will which is the volume of His Book delivered Israel out of Egyptian bondage; it is then YHWH began to give His BOOK piecemeal to Israel his Firstborn (nation-national) Son, the Hebrew, that Israel of God who declares twice daily (Deu 6:4 KJV) Hear, O Israel: YHWH-YaH our God is one YHWH-YaH:
Jesus declared the word of YHWH (Mark 12:29 KJV) And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; YHWH-YaH our God is one YHWH-YaH.

(Zec 14:9 KJV) And YHWH-YaH shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one YHWH-YaH, and his name ( YHWH-YaH) one.

YHWH-YaH the ONE and ONLY Elohim his name YHWH-YaH ONE not three in one not trinity.

(Psa 40:7 KJV) Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

(Heb 10:7 KJV) Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

(Exo 4:22 KJV) And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith YHWH-YaH, Israel is my-YaH's son, even my-YaH's firstborn:

ISRAEL WAS GIVEN THE BOOK A LITTLE AT A TIME
(1 Pet 1:11 KJV) Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

WHAT WERE THEY SEARCHING IF NOT YHWH-YAH'S BOOK

(Heb 1:1 KJV) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(Heb 1:2 KJV) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by-for whom also he made the worlds;


willyah
 
Last edited:

chlotilde

Madame Curie
(2 Cor 5:21 KJV) For YHWH-YaH hath made Yehoshua to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

willyah
dang, I got a wonky mouse that refuses to cut and paste verse for me :)
add to that, it takes a while for me to even find the verse I'm looking for because I don't memorize words in the Bible, just ideas.

how do you reconcile that with Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.
 
dang, I got a wonky mouse that refuses to cut and paste verse for me :)
add to that, it takes a while for me to even find the verse I'm looking for because I don't memorize words in the Bible, just ideas.

how do you reconcile that with Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.

Yehoshua the son of man ( John 1:51 ) , the Last Adam ( 1 Cor 15:45 ) , the seed of Eve that was promised in Gen 3:15; becomes the annointed-Christened ( Luke 4:18 ) earthy high priest ( Heb 4:6) . The weakness of the last Adam ,the Son of man when tested by satan ( Mark 1:14) was always trumped by the annointing ( spirit of Christ the son of God in Yehoshua) ( Luke 4:4) thereby allowing Yehoshua the son of man to yet be without sin until YHWH-YaH made him-Yehoshua to be sin for us ( 2 Cor.5:21 )

And so it was not satan who made Yehoshua to sin but it was YHWH-YaH who made Yehoshua-Jesus to be sin for us.
When Jesus was on the cross and God made Jesus to be sin for us, this was when Yehoshua thought God had forsaken him.

After God raised Yehoshua as the Second man( 1 Cor 15:47 ), the supreme man from heaven who is now without sin. He now is our heavenly high priest in the order of Melchisedec ( Heb 5:6) the priest of the most high God ( Heb 7:1 ).

Yehoshua-Jesus made every believer a king and priest unto God.
(Rev 1:6 KJV) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

willyah
 
Last edited:

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Let me try to make this a bit more constructive. The problem is, even if we grant the premise that God knew exactly which books would make up the Bible, and revealed them over time, the question is about how it was revealed. To whom and in what way? Hence the question about how it is that we determine that the gospel of Mark is canonical but the gospel of Thomas is not, as one example. I wasn't even challenging the idea of scriptural authority, I was trying to draw out the fact that if you place the authority solely in the text there are difficult questions considering the history of the texts.
 

kepha31

Active Member
Let me try to make this a bit more constructive. The problem is, even if we grant the premise that God knew exactly which books would make up the Bible, and revealed them over time, the question is about how it was revealed. To whom and in what way? Hence the question about how it is that we determine that the gospel of Mark is canonical but the gospel of Thomas is not, as one example. I wasn't even challenging the idea of scriptural authority, I was trying to draw out the fact that if you place the authority solely in the text there are difficult questions considering the history of the texts.
There are those claiming the Holy Spirit guided individual congregations who agreed on everything without any kind of apostolic centrality. The "true believers" automatically knew without any discernment which books were inspired, hence no need for a Church. Or the Bible fell from the sky. One theory is just as lame as the other.
 

kepha31

Active Member
Mary was a sinner because all have sinned but Mary was also humble enough to say

(Luke 1:46 KJV) And Mary said, My soul doth magnify YHWH-YaH,
(Luke 1:47 KJV) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Only a sinner needs a Saviour.
Mary was saved by The Savior when she was conceived. God didn't have to do it that way, He chose to.
It was by the merits of the cross retrospectively, not by anything she did. David was forgiven of his sin by the merits of the cross retrospectively, so the concept shouldn't wrinkle your shirt.
There can be no room for sin if Mary is "Full of Grace",
Something must have happened to Mary for the angel to say "the Lord IS with you" before he even got there. He did not say, "the Lord will be with you". So when was the Lord first 'with' Mary?You have to reason it out, because the Bible is not explicit as to when Mary became "Full of Grace", but it was before she said "YES" to God.

Romans 6:14: "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It's a "zero-sum game": the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.

2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that
1) grace does not save or
2) that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy.

It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace") & the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic & Exegetical Considerations

Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
"all" in this verse is not used in the absolute sense. Here's proof:
Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).
Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Can God and sin coexist?
 
Last edited:
Mary was saved by The Savior when she was conceived. God didn't have to do it that way, He chose to.
It was by the merits of the cross retrospectively, not by anything she did. David was forgiven of his sin by the merits of the cross retrospectively, so the concept shouldn't wrinkle your shirt.
There can be no room for sin if Mary is "Full of Grace",
Something must have happened to Mary for the angel to say "the Lord IS with you" before he even got there. He did not say, "the Lord will be with you". So when was the Lord first 'with' Mary?You have to reason it out, because the Bible is not explicit as to when Mary became "Full of Grace", but it was before she said "YES" to God.

Romans 6:14: "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It's a "zero-sum game": the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.

2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that
1) grace does not save or
2) that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy.

It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace") & the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic & Exegetical Considerations


"all" in this verse is not used in the absolute sense. Here's proof:
Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).
Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Can God and sin coexist?


God made Jesus who knew no sin to be sin for us. If as RCC doctrine teaches that Jesus is the God man. I ask you; Can God and sin coexist?

(Psa 139:8 KJV) If I ( David )ascend up into heaven, thou( God) art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou ( God) art there.

Can God and sin coexist??

(2 Cor 5:21 KJV) For he( God) hath made him ( Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (Yehoshua-Jesus) .

(1 Cor 15:50 KJV) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Scripture does not teach Enoch did not die.
(Gen 5:24 KJV) And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

God took Enoch where?????
It does not say into the heaven of God. Enoch could have continued to walk with God somewhere else on earth until he died.

YHWH-YaH buried Moses YHWH-YaH buried Moses where we do not know and we can say we do not know if Enoch died but to enter the kingdom of God the flesh has to die once.

(Heb 9:27 KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(Deu 34:5 KJV) So Moses the servant of YHWH-YaH died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of YHWH-YaH.
(Deu 34:6 KJV) And YHWH-YaH buried Moses in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

(2 Ki 2:11 KJV) And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Elijah never went into the heaven of God, the kingdom of God where the tree of life resides.

THE FIRST MENTION of GRACE
The first mention of “grace” in the Bible was Noah found grace in the eyes of God: the first mention in the New Testament is Luke 1:30, where Mary “found favour” (same word as “grace”) with God. God’s grace is found, not earned! Note the consistent Biblical order here: Noah first found grace, then he was a justified, righteous man, finally becoming perfect (complete or mature) in his relation to both God and man, and ultimately walking with God in a life of total faith and fellowship.

Noah was not sinless because he found grace in the eyes of God. So how is it you see Mary as sinless since according to your own doctrine of original sin Mary as a mortal woman was conceived by her sinful mother and father?

PSA 51:5 is used by the rcc to teach babies are conceived in the inherited of the mother. I guess you have away around your doctrine of original sin when it comes to Mary Mary.

(Prs. 51:5 KJV) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(Luke 1:30 KJV) And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour-graciousness- 5485 with God.

(Acts 4:33 KJV) And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of master Jesus: and great grace-5485 was upon them all.

Were all the apostles sinless because great grace-5485 was upon them all?

Stephen in Acts 6:8 according to the latin vulgate was "full of grace" and was he sinless also? Nope.

Mary had the promised seed of Eve in her womb and remember Jesus was the seed of his father David.

(Gen 3:15 KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(Luke 1:32 KJV) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

willyah
 
Last edited:

chlotilde

Madame Curie



And so it was not satan who made Yehoshua to sin but it was YHWH-YaH who made Yehoshua-Jesus to be sin for us.
When Jesus was on the cross and God made Jesus to be sin for us, this was when Yehoshua thought God had forsaken him.
So....is what you are meaning when you say "Jesus to be sin", that it was his sins and our sins (or something else)? If it is not his sins, then I would conclude, Jesus did not sin. (that may sound circular,but it aligns the meaning of the two verses)
I have a feeling your answer is a "fuzzy" something else that I can't seem to understand. That is probably because you don't believe Jesus is God and I do, so we understand the dying on the cross from a totally different perspective.
I see that "Why have you forsaken me" as God preaching from the cross, where as you see it as Jesus talking to God.
 
Last edited:

katiemygirl

CHRISTIAN
.
More than likely is not valid for sound scriptural doctrine. Sound doctrine is holding fast the faithful word (Titus 1:9).

(2 Tim 4:3 KJV) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
(2 Tim 4:4 KJV) And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.



The words " the Lord's Supper" do not appear in Acts 2:42. There is no mention of eating flesh or drinking blood in Acts 2:42 not even symbolically. Jesus as the resurrected Second man was with his disciples for 40 days after his resurrection.
(Acts 1:3 KJV) To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

During those 40 days they never eat flesh or drank the blood of Jesus nor did they do a RCC Eucharistic service of any kind rather Jesus spoke to them things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

I believe in no RCC doctrines whatsoever; I believe the word of YHWH-YaH in every generation instigates sound scriptural doctrine.

willyah
I am confused by what you are saying. Are you saying New Testament Christians did not share the Lord's Supper? 1 Corinthians 11:20-34, 10:16-21 say they did.

Acts 2:42 does not use the term Lord's Supper, but mostly all reputable scholars believe "the breaking of bread" is a reference to sharing the bread and fruit of the vine in remembrance of Jesus. The phrase is grouped together with other acts of worship in that verse: preaching and prayer.

I do not believe the Scriptures teach transubstantiation, but they do teach that we are commanded to take the bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus. Jesus promised He would drink it with His disciples in His Father's kingdom. His kingdom is here, and every time we have communion, Jesus is right there, communing with us.
 
Top