Standing Up To Rome

[WeberHome]

-
CLAIM: The Blessed Virgin Mary is the role model for all mothers.

RESPONSE: The real role models for Christian mothers are married women with children of
their own.

†. Titus 2:3-5 . .Teach the older women to live in a way that is appropriate for someone serving
the Lord. They must not go around speaking evil of others and must not be heavy drinkers.
Instead, they should teach others what is good. These older women must train the younger
women to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to take care of their
homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring shame on
the word of God.

OBJECTION: According to Ste. Paul, women serve The Lord better when they're celibate (1Cor
7:32-35).

RESPONSE: Christ's mom wasn't a loner. She was a mother with a child to raise; which no
doubt put heavy demands upon her time and attention. Children are a major distraction if
ever. In point of fact, a child is far and away more distracting than a husband.

So if Christ's mom could still be of use to The Lord as a mother in spite of the distractions of
raising a child, then why can't other women? Bottom line is: it all depends upon what you're cut
out for.

If a woman is happier as a loner, then celibacy is right for her. But if a women is happier with
marriage and family, then celibacy is absolutely not right for her. And let me tell you something,
if celibacy drives a woman to weeping and thoughts of suicide, then just how much real use is
she to The Lord and to her fellow man in that condition?

The Lord's followers are supposed to be content, not racked with depression and thoughts of
suicide. Those negative characteristics are a very poor testimony to the value of New Testament
Christianity.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
CLAIM: Mary was selected to be Christ's mom because she was a wonderful,
ultra pious human being.

RESPONSE: First and foremost: Christ's mother had to meet an irrevocable
prerequisite that had nothing at all to do with her personality. She had to be
one of David's biological grandchildren because Christ in turn had to be
David's biological grandchild in order to qualify as a candidate to inherit his
throne. This prerequisite was chipped in stone way back in the Old
Testament in a promise that God made to David as per 2Sam 7:12-13 and
Ps 132:11, cf. Acts 2:30 and Rom 1:3)

OBJECTION: David was of the tribe of Judah. Mary was related to Elizabeth
who in turn was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36)

RESPONSE: Judah and Levi are biological brothers by means of Leah. (Gen
35:23)

Q: So what are you saying? That the "Holy Mary, Mother Of God" was a
mere baby mill?

A: Women have been milling babies since the very beginning-- it is their
purpose in life; and it's perfectly normal.

†. Gen 3:16 . .Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children

†. Gen 3:20 . .And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she became
the mother of all living. (cf. 1Tim 2:13-15)

Rome has so mystified Christ's mom to the point where she's no longer
a real-life Jewish woman with thoughts and feelings of her own. And for
somebody to be ticked off because I called her a baby mill is both an
oxymoron and a non sequitur.

Perhaps my critics would prefer that men have the periods, and the bloating,
and the pregnancies, and the deliveries, and the means for breast feeding.
Christ's mom had all that, and I'm not even going to get into feminine
hygiene and the ladies' room. I demand that Catholicism bring Christ's mom
back to reality: de-mystify Joseph's wife, and make her a human being again
like she was to begin with.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
The Ave Maria & Lovely Lady Dressed In Blue

I have a prayer of my own in response to those.

The Ave Christos

Hail Messiah Jesus ben David!
Almighty God has always been with you.
Blessed are you above every living creature (including your mother).
Blessed are all they who put their trust in you (rather than in your mother).
Blessed are they who look forward to your return.
Holy Messiah Jesus, my sacred sibling; welcome me home at the hour of my
death.
I look forward to meeting you in person;
as I look forward to your enemies crushed to death
in the winepress of the wrath of God.
Amen.

One of the lines in Lovely Lady Dressed In Blue is a line that says; "Lovely
Lady dressed in blue- Teach me how to pray!" That is so insulting. Jesus is
supposed to be the believer's prayer coach; not his mom.

†. Luke 11:1-2 . .Once when Jesus had been out praying, one of his disciples
came to him as he finished and said, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples." He said, "This is how you should pray: Father [not
Mother], may your name [not Mary's name] be honored."

Believers are mandated to pray "in The Spirit"

†. Eph 6:18 . .And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers
and requests.

†. Jude 1:20 . .But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy
faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

I can easily guarantee that when believers comply with that mandate, and
pray in The Sprit, they will not pray to a mother, no, they will pray to a
father.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear;
but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Abba!
Father. The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

It is easily seen from those passages that when Rome prays to Christ's
mom, rather than praying to his Father, they are doing so out of failure to
pray in The Spirit, and also because they lack The Spirit's assurance that
they are God's children rather than Mary's.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
It's commonly believed that Christ wasn't effected by the so-called original
sin because it wasn't passed down to him by a biological father. But it's easy
to debunk that theory by going back to the very beginning.

Adam was created directly from the earth's dust. Not so Eve.

She was created from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side.
Thus Eve wasn't a second species of h.sapiens. She was biologically just as
much Adam as Adam except for gender. In other words: Eve was the flip
side of the same biological coin. According to Gen 5:2, Eve is Adam the
same as Adam is Adam.

So then, human life biologically produced by Eve-- whether virgin conceived
or naturally conceived --is biologically just as much Adam as Adam because
the source of its mother's life is Adam.

†. Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

It is pretty much universally agreed among Christians that the offspring
spoken of in that passage is Christ. Well; seeing as how Christ derived his
life from Eve, and she in turn derived her life from Adam, then it's readily
deduced that Adam is Christ's biological progenitor.

It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome
necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't.
However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of
man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to
construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And
seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then
any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would
actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was
produced from Adam's flesh.

Bottom line: In order to qualify as one of Adam's biological descendants, a
person need only be one of Eve's biological descendants: which we all are;
including Christ and his mother.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

It was the creator's deliberate design that all human life be derived from a
solo specimen of human life.

†. Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth

So then; seeing as how Christ is Adam's biological progeny, then Christ,
right along with all the rest of Adam's biological progeny, shares the results
of tasting the forbidden fruit.

†. Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

†. Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were
made sinners.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a sinner due to Adam's disobedience, then how
can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?

A: Adam's disobedience made Christ a sinner right along with his fellow
men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal
sins of his own (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). We're not
talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, nor about Rome's "stain"
fantasy; no, we're talking about a class-action felony, so to speak.

The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to
clear his sin off the books seeing as how Adam's demise is the proper
satisfaction of justice for his sin (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for
his progeny's own personal sins is another matter.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
CLAIM: Christ's mom was sinless since the Holy Bible says she was "full" of
grace (Luke 1:26-30).

RESPONSE: The Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are both in error
because the New Testament's Greek of Luke 1:26-30 doesn't contain the
words "full of grace." The current official Catholic Bible renders Luke's
testimony like this:

†. Luke 1:26-30 . . In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named
Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming
to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was
greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this
might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have
found favor with God."

Rome duped Catholics for years with its erroneous version of Luke 1:26-30,
and even incorporated the error into a rote prayer well known to penance
and rosary chanters as the Hail Mary, a.k.a. Ave Maria.

I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was full of grace. I have however seen
one that says Jesus was (e.g. John 1:14).

I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was sinless. I have, however, seen Bible
texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity, state that God's son
was sinless (e.g. 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 1:18-19, 1Pet 2:22, and 1John
3:5).

Bouncing off of it's own Church-made construction of Luke 1:26-30--
enhanced by a similar Church-made construction of Luke 1:42 --Rome
announced that the soul of Christ's mom was miraculously created in an
immaculate, sinless state of being, and legislated the Immaculate
Conception an official dogma Dec 8, 1854. That's about 1,700 years after
the apostles, which is very recent-- a mere 154 years ago, about the time
when gold was discovered in California and America's continental railroad
was completed.

The Dec 8, 1854 dogma has absolutely no basis in fact. In reality, there are
no Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that
Miriam's conception was a miracle. On the other hand, in reality, there are
Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that the
conception of God's son was a miracle (e.g. Matt 1:18-24, Luke 1:26-35)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
CLAIM: The immaculate conception was believed in The Church much earlier
than its becoming an official dogma; e.g. Franciscan John Duns Scotus (c.
1264-1308), introduced the idea of pre-redemption in order to reconcile
Mary's freedom from original sin in her conception before the coming of
Christ.

RESPONSE: That's precisely the point. The so-called Immaculate Conception
is an introduced idea; viz: a fantasy conceived in the minds of presumptuous
clergy; rather than a clear-cut Biblical revelation. But still, even John Duns
Scotus' idea came along more than a thousand years after the fact; which
would make his idea retroactive rather than proactive. You can't just
arbitrarily legislate retroactive revelation in order to lend credibility to
somebody's ideas. That's tantamount to creating your own revelation rather
than accepting God's.

And anyway; it should go without saying that a concept's antiquity is not an
eo ipso guarantee of its reliability. Untruths were being propagated by
professing Christians even while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-9,
Jud 1:3-4, 2Pet 3:15-16, 1John 2:18-19). If Rome's clergy considers itself
the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, then it has a serious responsibility to
be honest, and a responsibility to keep the truth pure and uncontaminated
from the injection of man-made fantasies somebody contrived in an effort to
reconcile things they don't understand.

Paul admonished his fellow believers at Thessalonica to "hold to the
traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter
from us" (2Thss 2:15). A tradition introduced into dogma 1,700 years after
the apostles certainly does not qualify as a tradition "from us".

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
OBJECTION: It is absolutely unthinkable that the Son Of God-- the second
person of the Holy Trinity --would ever allow himself to be born of an
ordinary woman!

RESPONSE: A statement like that reads sexism, personal biases, and human
sensibilities into holy writ instead of just letting holy writ speak for itself
while listening to what it has to say; and does in fact mirror a snob's attitude
towards women of lesser estate.

†. Luke 7:37-39 …And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an
alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and
began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her
head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

. . . Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within
himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and
what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

The supercilious Pharisee thought that the woman wasn't good enough to be
on touchy-feely terms with a prophet, but boy was he ever wrong about
that! (cf. John 4:5-9)

It was absolutely essential that Jesus be born a fellow man. Not just a man,
but a fellow man. Take away a normal mother, and Jesus would not be a
fellow man; no, he would be an alien.

†. Heb 2:16-17 …For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he
took on him the genetics of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved
him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be sympathetic

Take way Christ's normal mother and he might be empathetic, but he could
never be sympathetic. You have to be fully human in order to be
sympathetic with another fully human being.

Mary's own human DNA was laced with the genes of prominent immoral
females in Christ's blood line: Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba; to name just
three without even mentioning the immoral males like Judah and David. And
Peres himself was a baby of adultery since Tamar was betrothed to Shelah
when she slept with Judah.

Ergo: Mary's female body was genetically impure from those six people; so
that even if she herself had actually been born sinless, the flesh and blood of
her female plumbing was not. Her flesh and blood was the genetic product of
at least five immoral human beings in her family's pedigree; and a sixth
born of adultery. So then, in reality, the baby Jesus passed through the birth
canal, and the labia and the pubic hairs, of tainted female flesh.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
OBJECTION: How can anyone possibly think it's proper for an ordinary
woman to carry the very Word himself in her body?

RESPONSE: The question infers that Christ's mother was divine because the
logic of the question demands that only a god is good enough to carry God
in its body.

Well; if Rome's Mary is a god, then they have a problem because according
to 2Chron 15:3, Jer 10:10, and John 17:3, there is only one true god; ergo:
Rome's Mary would be a false god; and Rome would be pagan because
according to the very first of the Ten Commandments it is wrong to venerate
false gods.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[glassjester]

-
OBJECTION: How can anyone possibly think it's proper for an ordinary
woman to carry the very Word himself in her body?

RESPONSE: The question infers that Christ's mother was divine because the
logic of the question demands that only a god is good enough to carry God
in its body.

This makes no sense. You believe that Eve came into being without sin. Yet this doesn't imply that she was a god.

So why would Mary's sinlessness imply that she is a god?

 

[Bright Raven]

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?

To the Catholic Church since it place its traditions and the church on equal or higher authority than bible.

 

[Cruciform]

To the Catholic Church since it place its traditions and the church on equal or higher authority than bible.

"Equal," yes; "higher," no. In any case, you failed to actually answer the question. Here it is again:

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[OCTOBER23]

Baptised infant into the Roman Catholic Church
-----------------------------------------------------
Too bad the Roman Catholic Church wont be around anymore in 10 years.

 

[Bright Raven]

"Equal," yes; "higher," no. In any case, you failed to actually answer the question. Here it is again:

QUESTION: According to whose infallible and binding authority do you claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I told you already. The Catholic Church makes its own claim.

 

[glassjester]

Baptised infant into the Roman Catholic Church
-----------------------------------------------------
Too bad the Roman Catholic Church wont be around anymore in 10 years.

Sure.

 

[Cruciform]

I told you already. The Catholic Church makes its own claim.

And I'm asking about your claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?" According to whose infallible and binding authority do you make this claim?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

And I'm asking about your claim that the Catholic Church "disagrees with the Bible and Christ"?" According to whose infallible and binding authority do you make this claim?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Simply this;

2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version (ESV)

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

It would seem that the apostle is saying that all the man of God needs is an understanding of the scriptures as illuminated unto him by the Holy Spirit. Do you disagree or do you add tradition. If you do where does scripture tell you so?

 

[glassjester]

Simply this;

2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version (ESV)

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

It would seem that the apostle is saying that all the man of God needs is an understanding of the scriptures as illuminated unto him by the Holy Spirit. Do you disagree or do you add tradition. If you do where does scripture tell you so?

You revised Paul's statement quite a bit, there. How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?

 

[Bright Raven]

You revised Paul's statement quite a bit, there. How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?

If mine be incorrect, please give me that which is correct.

 

[glassjester]

If mine be incorrect, please give me that which is correct.

The very fact that varying interpretations exist at all, disproves your interpretation of 2 Timothy. It's simply unworkable.

You're using 2 Timothy to claim formal sufficiency of Scripture. Yet, the fact that you reworded Paul's statement to further explain it, precludes the formal sufficiency of that passage.

 

[everready]

Where In Gods Word Did Jesus Ever Teach This

Where In Gods Word Did Jesus Ever Teach This

‘The Christian Who Does Not Feel Mary Is His Mother Is an Orphan’

ROME — Pope Francis focused on the person of Mary in statements issued both Tuesday and Wednesday, making assertions that some opine are unbiblical and heretical.

“The Christian who does not feel that the Virgin Mary is his or her mother is an orphan,” he Tweeted on Tuesday, a post that generated much criticism from around the world.

“Sorry fella, you lost me on this one,” one follower wrote.

But over 5,600 followers favorited the Tweet and over 3,600 shared it.

Today, the pope gave his weekly address in Rome, speaking about the Roman Catholic Church serving as a “mother” to the world, and exhorting the Church to follow Mary as an example of how to be a mother.

“In our catecheses, we have often noted that we do not become a Christian on our own, but by being born and nurtured in the faith in the midst of the People of God, that is the Church,” he stated. “She is a true mother who gives us life in Christ, and in the communion of the Holy Spirit, brings us into a common life with our brothers and sisters.”

“The model of motherhood for the Church is the Blessed Virgin Mary, who in the fullness of time conceived through the Holy Spirit and gave birth to the Son of God,” Pope Francis continued. “Her motherhood continues through the Church, who brings forth sons and daughters through baptism, whom she nourishes through the word of God.”

He also urged the crowds to seek the intercession of Mary, and pray that they can “learn from her that tenderness which allows us to be witnesses of maternity of the Church.”

Christian News Network asked Mike Gendron of Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries in Plano, Texas to share his thoughts Wednesday regarding the pope’s latest Tweet asserting that those who reject Mary as mother are orphans. He expressed disagreement, stating that as per Romans 8:15, those who receive the adoption of sons through the blood of Jesus can never be orphans.

“The pope continues to display his biblical ignorance,” he said. “Pope Francis does not know that Christians cannot be orphans because they have been adopted into God’s eternal family. No one can be an orphan who has received the Spirit of adoption as sons joyfully cry out ‘Abba! Father!'”

Gendron also took issue with the Tweet referring to Christians, stating that Christians and Catholics are two separate entities.

“The pope should stick to Tweeting about Catholics since he does not know how Scripture defines a Christian,” he said. “The Roman Catholic Church not only fabricates heresies concerning Mary, but does the same with her son Jesus by denying that He is the all-sufficient Savior.”

“His religion teaches that a Catholic needs to be justified repeatedly by sacraments and works because he/she loses the grace of justification each time a mortal sin is committed,” Gendron stated. “A Christian is justified once by faith because justification is a permanent declaration of righteousness by God. A Catholic is purified by the fires of Purgatory. A Christian is purified by the blood of Jesus.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/09/03...oes-not-feel-mary-is-his-mother-is-an-orphan/

everready