You won't even endorse Bob Enyart's (of happy memory) book on Dispensationalism
Liar. I have given you my endorsement of
The Plot.
What I have not done and refuse to do, is put it on the same level as scripture, or claim that it is somehow authoritative.
That would be idolatry.
If it's wrong, then demonstrate it.
But you won't even read it, so how could you?
but I have to answer for every mistake that every Catholic ever made?
You should at least respond intellectually honestly to the challenges to your position.
That means no appeals to authority, no placing the Catholic traditions on an untouchable pedestal, no begging the question, no reading your beliefs into the text.
Is this the hill you want to die on?
What hill?
All I care about is the truth, and what is a true and a correct representation of Scripture.
For me the statues are three-dimensional pictures of family members who have passed on. If they are pictures or statues they are the same thing, they are in memory. I personally look at them and think about the Saint depicted and sometimes think about their Earthly relationship with Jesus
No comment.
and think about asking for their intercession
There is ONE mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.
That's Scripture.
The Spirit Himself makes intercession for us according to the will of God.
That's Scripture.
Jesus, who died, and furthermore is also risen, is at the right hand of God, makes intercession for us.
That's Scripture.
You know what is NOT scripture?
Dead saints making intercession for living saints.
Why do you put mere men on the pedestal that, Scripturally, only Jesus Christ, and His Spirit, belongs on?
and about Heaven and any number of other thoughts, but in no case am I even tempted to worship them, that's ridiculous on the surface.
You do by putting them on a pedestal they do not deserve to be on, nor are capable of being on.
False. We are not obsessed with Our Lady,
Says the one trying to exalt her to a position higher than she deserves.
you Protestants are obsessed with taking her down a peg.
Because you've wrongly put her up where she doesn't belong.
That's what you're all obsessed with.
Confirmation bias.
Maybe the problem is the one in the mirror.
I mean I get that Our Lady not being down a peg is Catholic, almost exclusively, but not if you look at historical Protestantism. All the first generation Protestants in the early 16th century all gave Our Lady the honor she deserves as the queen mother of Heaven and Earth.
Appeal to tradition.
Obsession with taking her down a peg developed over time. You're probably not even aware of that.
There's no [w] there. " ... with thinking of Our Lady as defiled somehow ... " is correct.
What?
Again, your assertion is that she is sinless.
I'm telling you she wasn't, and admitted such.
God can do whatever He wants. This isn't about what He can do, that's off-topic; it's about what He did.
So why do you believe that He didn't?
Make the argument. From Scripture, please.
"Saying it doesn't make it so." Ever.
Supra.
"Saying it doesn't make it so."
Good thing I've presented evidence that supports my claims, then.
Certainly there was an attempt. That's not what this is about though, about attempting to establish a thesis; it's about whether a Scripture positively impugns Our Lady as an objective sinner.
All have sinned.
What's so hard to understand about that?
This has not been demonstrated, proven, or shown to be the case.
You calling Paul a liar?
Your post here doesn't change it either, since we have already established that in your reading of the verse Jesus Our Lord is also guilty of sin,
No, that's a straw man. Wishful thinking on your part.
and that's just flat wrong,
So Paul was just "flat wrong"?
Or, would you like to get yourself up to speed and recognize that Paul obviously isn't including Jesus in his use of "all"?
so we know that your way of reading the verse is also wrong,
Saying it doesn't make it so.
and any other fruit that tree produces should be suspect right from the start.
Supra.
"Saying it doesn't make it so."
Supra.
That doesn't necessarily mean she is admitting to being a sinner JR, I addressed that already.
Yes, it does.
"God my Savior."
This was after she was told she was to be the human mother of the Son of God, the promised Messiah, the one who would SAVE ISRAEL. (Jesus = "the Lord Saves"). From what?
What else could she possibly have needed saving from?
Romans 11:26-27
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
"All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God."
Or was Paul wrong?
Don't forget Our Lady is only the mother of Our Lord, she is not Our Lord or equal to Him.
Then why do you keep trying to give her the same attributes as Him? Omniscience and Omnipresence...
So of course her state is lower than His. Again; doesn't mean she's admitting to being a sinner.
Yes, it does.
You imported that meaning. Eisegesis.
Hypocrite, you who has to read Mary being sinless into the text yourself.
We address her as the angel Gabriel addressed her, "Blessed art thou among women."
So do we.
Doesn't mean she was sinless.
idk why you continued the quote. Seemed superfluous, is there something in this wall of text that you wanted me to pay attention to? You didn't highlight or bold anything. And none of it at first blush corroborates your contention.
Because it is relevant.
Try reading it.
No.
I would like to see the context so I can evaluate if it's supposed to be ironic. Because on its face it's just meaninglessness. All X means All X, otherwise we wouldn't say "All X." We'd say some, or many, or most, but not All. We might even just say "one," or "all but one."
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:‘Prepare the way of the Lord;Make His paths straight.’ ” Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and
were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
John the Baptist Prepares the Way - In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
www.biblegateway.com
Do you think that the entire city of the residents of Jerusalem, EVERY Judea-ite, and LITERALLY EVERYONE in the region around the Jordan river, were baptized by John, confessing their sins?
Or does it actually just mean that a significant number of people from Jerusalem, Judea, and the region around the Jordan, did so?
Which more reasonable? Which makes more sense?
Do you really think that the entire city of Jerusalem, every person (around 55,000 people), the entire nation of Judeah, every person (perhaps 1.5 MILLION people, just based off a very rudimentary search on Google), and the entire region around the Jordan, every person (no idea how many, but probably more than Judea), was baptized by John?
It's physically impossible. And the Bible doesn't indicate that John's baptisms of the people he baptized was in any way miraculous.
Would you like to retract your claim that "all always means literally all"?
But we wouldn't say, and neither would the Holy Spirit say (Who has spoken through the Prophets), "All" unless we mean "All." It does no good to even use the word All if All isn't all that All means.
We don't use "All" as an analogy or metaphor or figure of speech.
Yes, we do.
The logical square of opposition would crumble and collapse and mean nothing if like you say "All rarely ever means woodenly literally All."
en.wikipedia.org
So if it's somebody else's quote let's see a cite so we can see if it was intended as irony.
Supra.
You're making my point for me. Thank you!
Claiming my position as yours isn't going to work, Idolater.
Last I checked, Mary falls into at least one of those categories.
And since Jesus is God, Paul can't be referring to Him, since "all have sinned" doesn't apply to Jesus by definition, since Jesus didn't sin.
Right. He's also clearly not necessarily including Our Lady.
Eisegesis.
Jesus was sinless. Otherwise He could not have paid for our sins.
There is nothing to indicate, other than Catholic tradition, which is external to the Bible, that Mary was sinless, or that she needed to be.
He's arguing that both Jews and Gentiles and not only Jews, are candidates for Our Lord's salvation. This is his thesis.
Supra.
Supra.
"Saying it doesn't make it so."
Prove it. Cite to source. And also, don't forget to not commit the appeal to authority fallacy in doing so, if you can.
Right back at you.
My position is under no threat, immediate or otherwise.
And, "Saying it doesn't make it so."
Supra.
In the "ad hoc rescue device" I addressed this question already. I already answered. Asked and answered.
Supra.
It doesn't mean she wasn't, either.
Supra.
"Saying it doesn't make it so."
Supra.
She was given special grace,
Book, chapter, verse.
that's what makes her special, she is special because of God.
She was special because God chose her to be the mother of His Son.
Don't make her into more than she was.
Making her a sinner, guilty of sin, blemished with sin.
Supra.
That's just a creed. "Saying it doesn't make it so." You're not quoting Scripture here, this is your interpretation.
Right back at you.
We know little to nothing about Enoch, except that he walked with God.
He was human, and therefore had Adam's fallen nature.
365 years is a long time to live without sinning. Adam and Eve couldn't even make it a month.
Noah was hardly sinless.
Same as Enoch. John was only six months older than Jesus.
we have Scriptural reasons to believe they were all (uniquely) sinless.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it.
Our Lady has been preserved from sin since her Immaculate Conception.
Yes, that's Catholic Tradition.
What does the BIBLE say?
Hoping knows of this creed, so when he accuses her, he knows exactly what he's doing.
"Saying it doesn't make it so."
Supra.
She spoke Spanish in Guadalupe.
Prove it.
She is among the cloud of witnesses. Hebrews 12:1
What about Hebrews 12:1 gives you any indication that any and/or all of those witnesses must be omniscient and/or omnipresent?
Couldn't it just mean some witnesses are in one place, and other witnesses are in another place?
Hardly omniscient or omnipresent.
"Saying it doesn't make it so."
Supra.
Are you saying this was a sin?
Was it not her responsibility to not lose her child?
She's the mother of all who believe.
Sorry, but I can't find the phrase, "mother of all who believe" in Scripture.
Could you please demonstrate this claim using Scripture?
Supra.
"your friend?" Are you serious? "your friend." "your friend." AMR.
Yawn.
No we actually teach that the Apostle John was the most beloved of all His Disciples, and Him giving Our Lady to St. John is the positive proof of it.
Of course, if you dress it up that way, anyone could use similar language to make a pig look downright gorgeous.
Supra. Our Lady is the mother of all who believe
Supra.
in part because from Good Friday to Easter she was the ONLY Christian on Earth. Not even any of Our Lord's Disciples believed in Him during that time, when He was in the tomb, just Our Lady. Only her. She was the entire Church Militant from His Passion to His Resurrection. So she is our mother in the faith.
Making things up won't help your position.
No, I'm not referring to her belief in Jesus or the disciples' lack thereof. I'm referring to the other stuff you said.
Good thing I'm not lying, then.
Idol: a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered.
Good thing I'm not doing that then, as a Catholic.
Supra.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
