End times prophecy checklist...

[EssentialSacrifice]

just curious, Rick, where in scripture is the term, "The Holy Trinity" used to describe our God? and does it's absence in the scriptures make it any less true ?

[SoCalExile]

Yeah she didn't deserve to be the mother of Christ, it was a gift: i.e grace.

so what is being said here, God chose Mary as the Mother of God, for his good reasons, but didn't find her deservng ?
really, in any way ? how is it you know so well the mind and thoughts of God. I reason she was favored by His decision, how do reason she was not deserving when you already know she is "full of grace".

"χαριτόω charitóō, khar-ee-to'-o; from G5485; to grace, i.e. indue with special honor:—make accepted, be highly favoured."

Note the same Greek wordis used twice in Ephesians 1:6, to describe all believers:
"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made (χαριτόω) us accepted (χαριτόω) in the beloved."

Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotescontinuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109,

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

and there in lies the difference So Cal … The Greek writer saw Mary as grace filled before during and after her angelic encounter. Grace filled sin free. The angel called her “hail full of grace” he gave her a new name, he called her by what is most prominent in her, that which is most striking, what is most abundant and abundantly clear … she is grace filled beyond our capacity to comprehend.

It is this: Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47.

Why do you and others struggle so mightily at the sinlessness of the Mother of God. How else would you have it ? Would you want your mother to be any other ? How else could it possibly be ? As one example of many, how does the sinless Son of God Hebrews 4:15 become the righteous man from a sinful woman ? Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone blood of my blood, right ? Genesis 2:23-25 right down to the DNA, Mary is where Jesus gets His corporal body from . That's the human part of the ManGod that cannot be denied. A human being. His flesh and bone from Mary's flesh and bone would be contaminated with/by her original sin ( she would pass it on to her child, Jesus just as our mother's did us) had she had even the slightest amount. Are you saying Christ wasn't sinless ? Of course not, but if he is not it's because she was not or if she were, He, His human side would be in sin, which the Father would never abide…
Can a soul enslaved by sin of any kind be full of the Divine Grace of God? Luke 1:28 The answer should be obvious, it CAN’T, God HATES ALL SIN.
… Rom. 1: 18 , Job 34:10 , Ex. 20: 5 , Wisdom14:9

You went through a logical backflip to get around the lack of scripture to assert your point that Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless, but who was sinless to make Mary sinless? And if Mary can be born of a sinner and still be sinless, why can't Jesus?

And again, does Ephesians 1:6 mean we're Immaculately Conceived?

[EssentialSacrifice]

Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless

I never said this … your words. Jesus has never been in sin of any kind. I said Mary had to be sinless, in God's plan for the conception of the already and always sinless Christ, by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. God could have done this any way He chose, and this is how, the immaculate conception.

but who was sinless to make Mary sinless?

Is this you making decisions for God ? Does the one who bore Mary have to be sinless ? Why ? Mary's mom and dad were people born under original sin like almost all the rest of us. So here are you, deciding Anne must also be sinless, denying the power of God to act on His will, in His way, to “immaculately conceive”, of course this means at conception, so the biological mother and father of Mary was involved in the creation of the body but God the Father graced her soul without the stain of original sin, gave her the same free grace as adam and eve, but unlike them, she untied the knot of sin, tied by the disobedience of the first eve, by her obedience, continued obedience and pure love of God. And for this, the Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love". Eph 1:3-4

And if Mary can be born of a sinner and still be sinless, why can't Jesus?

Because Mary isn't God. God requires and deserves his place of residence to be holy. The spot wherein he occupies is holy, because for no other reason he is there. Mary is the new ark of the covenant, because of her carrying of the presence and holiness of the Lord and the contents found within the original ark... manna, aaron's rod and the tablets.
Exodus 25:10-16 Numbers 17:10 Exodus 16:33-34
The original ark made by man and endowed by God with his supernatural presence, which was instant death to any who were in sin and touched it. Ask Uzzah.

Inside the Ark/Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant

The stone tablets of the law - the word of God inscribed on stone
The body of Jesus Christ - the word of God in the flesh

The urn filled with manna from the wilderness - the miraculous bread come down from heaven
The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)

The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest
The actual and eternal High Priest
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articl ... w-covenant

the references are obvious. Mary's womb is the new ark of the covenant, and thereby, retains the same avarice, the same emnity towards sin, and not having any of it...

It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant, the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did.


Tell me, which scenario do you think is more respectful, would please the Father, her Son and her spouse the Holy Spirit more …

St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (155 A.D.):
"For Eve, a Virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High God. And she replied: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word.'"
or

Yeah she didn't deserve to be the mother of Christ, it was a gift: i.e grace.

And again, does Ephesians 1:6 mean we're Immaculately Conceived?

Apologies, I thought I put this one to bed. No, we're not immaculately conceived. The plan was for Mary (only, singularly) to conceive immaculately, as a virgin, without sin to gift the world of Jesus, the Son of God. Those circumstances are at a slightly higher pay grade then yours and mine and fittingly so.

[B. W.]

BW wrote:
The Immaculate Conception, meaning Mary is free from sin, is nothing more and nothing less than the old storyline of Ishtar and Tammuz - or Astarte and Nebo disguised in christianese.

Sorry, that is the blatant truth. If it offends you or others so be it. I do not offend on purpose but out of love in order to to restore people back to Jesus Christ who do not know the depths of Satan.

Is this real or just messing with thesign ?

Yes, it is real...

Suggest you look into this yourself. Beginning in ancient Canaan with Mount Hermon in Israel as the epicenter and then trace a straight line due North-north east to the head waters of the Tigris - Euphrates Rivers and south an equal distance and then draw a circumference you will find an area that covers parts of Greece, Turkey, the Tigris- Euphrates valley parts of of the Arabian Peninsula and the Nile regions from Luxor to the Nile delta in what looks like a bull’s eye.

All this region shares the same pagan deities, all with different names, and the story line for each entity is the same. Even the bible mentions the battle with these pagan religions and records that the ancient folks sacrificed to demons by idol worship of these beings.

Research on your own concerning ancient Mesopotamian gods. The Epicenter is Mount Hermon area and Ba'al worship along that NNE to SSW axis line I mentioned. This area is the oldest forms of the pantheon of that system. Then along the Tigris - Euphrates River valley and along the Nile we see the same regions reintroduce the same entities using the same story line but under differing names. This occurred in Aegean Sea Cyprus/Greece area as well two. Next, this same system, with the same story line spread world wide.

From a military standpoint, you can see - phase lines - and areas of new phase lines set up. This is determined by the historical time line of ancient pagan religious systems. Now is this part of what Rev 12:4 mentions? I do not know but it is interesting thing to note. It appears that the dragon mentioned in Rev 12 indeed sought to devour God's plan of salvation for humanity and sought to corrupt it by the time of Genesis chapter six but was stopped.

So the old pagan religions of Mesopotamia appear to be sent to thwart or discredit God's plan of salvation by mocking it, to get God to act contrary to his own attributes and nature. In the end, when Jesus came, the adversary was judged and cast out as ruler as the bible declares. In other words, the Lord again stopped the devil and his minions.

However, to better grasp the symbols used in the books of Daniel and Revelation, knowing the story line of the ancient pagan Mesopotamia entities, you will see what they are up too with the Antichrist person. You gain a better grasp of the who the woman symbolizes riding the beast and the workings of the beast.

One last note, the Mesopotamia religious entities use gender. There is no gender for angelic beings as Jesus mentioned. Don't think in terms of gender with these false deities. Instead think of a military hierarchy who have an overall commander and under him a second in command and so forth. Overall Commander has generals to command (male entities) and under them are the major brigade/division generals (female entities) and under them the regimental commanders, colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and so forth. Eph 6:12 may refer to this order as well too.

Their goal is to cause God to act against his own nature and character and promises and word, thus, causing another’s throne to be lifted above God’s. They game and use workaround strategies by using human agents for this purpose. That is the crux of spiritual warfare the bible mentions.

They corrupt humanity just as their character traits reveal in the old Mesopotamia religions. Let's not forget that the scriptures do refer to the people of that region sacrificing to demons viva their idol worship through a glorification and legitimizing of depravity to provoke God so that He looks like the bad guy. That same principle is what we see today at work.

So Yes, this stuff is real and came about. By looking at these through lens of the Holy Spirit within a believer one can sort this stuff out. Yes, there is a lot of Christianity that has infused and mixed paganism into their belief systems. One last note, the good news is that this is defeated by God's grace... Now re-read Revelation chapter two and three.

Blessings
-
-
-

[RickD]

just curious, Rick, where in scripture is the term, "The Holy Trinity" used to describe our God? and does it's absence in the scriptures make it any less true ?

Not a valid comparison. The Doctrine of the Trinity is an explanation for the God of the bible. "Mother of God" is not a valid description of Mary. God doesn't have a mother nor father. Mother of our Lord is the proper term used in scripture. I hope you can see the difference between "Mother of God", and "Mother of our Lord".

Mother of God implies something more than her being the mother of Christ's humanity.

And you wonder why people think Catholics place Mary in a higher place than scripture does?

[Philip]

And you wonder why people think Catholics place Mary in a higher place than scripture does?

Well, she did manage to pull of one incredible series of miracles: Had a husband and multiple sons and daughters, and yet managed to remain a virgin? Wow!

Catholic Church: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Scripture: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

And, poor Joseph! He gets hammered for supposed pre-marital hanky panky, stays obedient and marries Mary, but separate beds forever after. Guess he never would have converted to being a Muslim ("Beautiful virgins awaiting - BIG deal!").

[SoCalExile]

Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless

I never said this … your words. Jesus has never been in sin of any kind. I said Mary had to be sinless, in God's plan for the conception of the already and always sinless Christ, by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. God could have done this any way He chose, and this is how, the immaculate conception.

Yet curiously there's no scripture that actually backs this. Just, "that's the way it is".

Again, if Mary was sinless, then how could she be sinless by having a normal parent, yet Jesus' body couldn't be sinless by the same formula?

but who was sinless to make Mary sinless?

Is this you making decisions for God ? Does the one who bore Mary have to be sinless ?

No, but you seem to be making decisions for God, since there's no actual scripture that says in plain language that Mary was sinless.

And if Mary can be born of a sinner and still be sinless, why can't Jesus?

Because Mary isn't God. God requires and deserves his place of residence to be holy. The spot wherein he occupies is holy, because for no other reason he is there. Mary is the new ark of the covenant, because of her carrying of the presence and holiness of the Lord and the contents found within the original ark... manna, aaron's rod and the tablets.
Exodus 25:10-16 Numbers 17:10 Exodus 16:33-34
The original ark made by man and endowed by God with his supernatural presence, which was instant death to any who were in sin and touched it. Ask Uzzah.

Yet why isn't Jesus' virgin birth good enough? Why does Mary also have to have one? Because if Mary's womb isn't clean enough for Jesus then why is Mary's mother's womb clean enough to keep her separate from sin and thus sinless?

The argument that Jesus must be separate from sinners doesn't hold water (hah!) when Jesus spent all his earthly life with them.

Inside the Ark/Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant

The stone tablets of the law - the word of God inscribed on stone
The body of Jesus Christ - the word of God in the flesh

The urn filled with manna from the wilderness - the miraculous bread come down from heaven
The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)

The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest
The actual and eternal High Priest
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articl ... w-covenant

the references are obvious. Mary's womb is the new ark of the covenant, and thereby, retains the same avarice, the same emnity towards sin, and not having any of it...

It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant, the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn't have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did.

There is no scripture that states that the Holy of Holies symbolizes Mary's womb. The part that betrays this thought is that a man had to go into it to make atonement. Thus this symbolism would contradict Christ's virgin birth.

Yet Hebrews teaches us that the high priest of Israel who went into the HoH to spread the blood of the lamb on the mercy seat was a symbol of Christ, which makes the Roman symbolism just.....ew.

Tell me, which scenario do you think is more respectful, would please the Father, her Son and her spouse the Holy Spirit more …

St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (155 A.D.):
"For Eve, a Virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High God. And she replied: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word.'"
or

Yeah she didn't deserve to be the mother of Christ, it was a gift: i.e grace.

Considering she was a sinner like us, and that Martyr wasn't basing his claim on any Scripture, but his own fantasies and opinions, the latter makes far more sense.

And again, does Ephesians 1:6 mean we're Immaculately Conceived?

Apologies, I thought I put this one to bed. No, we're not immaculately conceived. The plan was for Mary (only, singularly) to conceive immaculately, as a virgin, without sin to gift the world of Jesus, the Son of God. Those circumstances are at a slightly higher pay grade then yours and mine and fittingly so.

You can't appeal to God here as if your assertion is proven fact, which it is not. The fact is that the same original Greek word for "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 appears in Ephesians 1:6 in reference to believers, so you can't claim that the term means that Mary is sinless but we are not. Either she is a sinner like the rest of us or we have the same sinlessness that you claim she had. You can't deflect from this by using God's rank in vain.

[SoCalExile]

And you wonder why people think Catholics place Mary in a higher place than scripture does?

Well, she did manage to pull of one incredible series of miracles: Had a husband and multiple sons and daughters, and yet managed to remain a virgin? Wow!

Catholic Church: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Scripture: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

And, poor Joseph! He gets hammered for supposed pre-marital hanky panky, stays obedient and marries Mary, but separate beds forever after. Guess he never would have converted to being a Muslim ("Beautiful virgins awaiting - BIG deal!").

The thing about this is that, in the Jewish culture of the time, the marriage wasn't validated until the consummation, which completed the three phases of a Jewish wedding (proposal/contract, nuptial, and consummation). So the Romans are trying to say that she wasn't actually married, which means that the genealogy of Matthew and the claim of Christ to the throne of David is in question. Furthermore, it calls into question Mary's character as a wife, who's role in a marriage is to ensure the husband can meet the divine purpose given to man (be fruitful and multiply). In short it makes her a terrible Jewish woman and poor wife, and is actually an insult to the actual woman.

[RickD]

Here's a great, easy to understand article about the difference between "Mary Mother of God"(nowhere in scripture), and "Mary the mother of our Lord"(in scripture).
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... ticle=2670

Notice the difference between these two syllogisms.


1) Mary was the mother of Jesus;

2) Jesus is God;

3) therefore, Mary is the “Mother of God.


And

1) Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8);

2) God became flesh (John 1:1,14);

3) therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body.

[Storyteller]

Been thinking about this a lot.

I have always considered Mary to be the Mother of God but now, Im thinking more that she was indeed the mother of Christ, of God in His human form. Christ was fully God and fully human so would need a human parent, hence Mary.
So is Mary just (and that isnt meant dismissively) the mother of Christ in his human form rather than His Godly form? Can Mary really be called the Mother of God, or should it be the mother of Christ?

This presents a real sticky point for me.... I have felt Mary (and God) so not sure how to figure this all out.

[RickD]

Been thinking about this a lot.

I have always considered Mary to be the Mother of God but now, Im thinking more that she was indeed the mother of Christ, of God in His human form. Christ was fully God and fully human so would need a human parent, hence Mary.
So is Mary just (and that isnt meant dismissively) the mother of Christ in his human form rather than His Godly form? Can Mary really be called the Mother of God, or should it be the mother of Christ?

This presents a real sticky point for me.... I have felt Mary (and God) so not sure how to figure this all out.

It's simple. Choose between scripture, and Catholicism.

But seriously, do some research, look at both sides, pray for discernment, and I'm sure you'll come to the right conclusion.

[Storyteller]

Fat lot of help you are!

I am praying, and trusting.

Its just a bit unsettling, it has been Catholicism that has drawn me so close to Christ, helped me connect with Christ, y'know?
A lot of people I really respect are Catholic, I get so much out of authors who happen to be Catholic. I was convinced that I was being led to Catholicism.
Having said that, I wouldnt commit to it unless I was sure and truly believed in the faith.

Back to research and questions and prayer, I guess.

Itsjust unsettling to experience this particular twist in the road.

[RickD]

Fat lot of help you are!

I am praying, and trusting.

Its just a bit unsettling, it has been Catholicism that has drawn me so close to Christ, helped me connect with Christ, y'know?
A lot of people I really respect are Catholic, I get so much out of authors who happen to be Catholic. I was convinced that I was being led to Catholicism.
Having said that, I wouldnt commit to it unless I was sure and truly believed in the faith.

Back to research and questions and prayer, I guess.

Itsjust unsettling to experience this particular twist in the road.

Annette,

Would it have helped if I told you to run? Run as far away from Catholicism as you can? Of course not. You need to do your own research, of course with the help of others. And you need to come to your own conclusions. I'm sure ES will be helping you understand Catholicism, as he has been. And others will give you different things to think about. But you are the one who has to come to your own decision.

Maybe a good idea would be for you to start a thread, and ask any questions that come to mind about Catholicism or differences between what its teachings are, and what others here believe. That way you could see different sides to the issues you may have questions about. That way you can take in all the different perspectives, and maybe that will help.

[Storyteller]

If you had told me to run, I would, just not in the direction you wanted.

Both ES and Byblos have been wonderful with their honesty, faith and tolerance. They have answered questions, debated issues with me, offered me support and love, welcomed me but neither have ever tried to draw me into Catholicism while admitting they would love to include me in their faith.

I will start a thread

[RickD]

If you had told me to run, I would, just not in the direction you wanted.

And that's why I didn't tell you that. Young lady, you are old enough to make grown-up decisions now!

Both ES and Byblos have been wonderful with their honesty, faith and tolerance. They have answered questions, debated issues with me, offered me support and love, welcomed me but neither have ever tried to draw me into Catholicism while admitting they would love to include me in their faith.

I will start a thread

And that's the way we all should be. Lay out the argument, and let you decide.

Remember,

This isn't a "must find an answer, or I'm going to hell" kind of discussion. Your faith in Christ is there.

And debating with ES and Byblos shows how believers can disagree with each other on certain issues, even strongly disagree, yet at the end of the day, we can still call each other Brothers in Christ.