The RC Mary has Godly attributes?

[Arch Stanton]

Proves nothing!!!

everything.... once one understands what Christ said

 

[Johan]

Jesus thinks you do, He is the high priest. High Priests have lower priests else there is no "High Priest"

But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation [Hebrews 9:11]​

​

If there is a new and perfect tabernacle then there must be priests to serve that tabernacle else you have nothing.

In that new and perfect tabernacle, no earthly priests are serving. And you will find no such information in Hebrews. Christ is both our High Priest and our substitutionary sacrifice.

 

[Johan]

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-rc-mary-has-godly-attributes.15023/page-9 [post 165]

As said, your claim has implications for 1 Tim. 2:3–4 as well. Which I will not be slow to remind you of whenever unbiblical notions like "free will" pop up in these discussions.

 

[Johan]

post 308 ?

That post contains no evidence for your claim. You just enumerate a bunch of NT writings.

 

[Johan]

we had this discussion before... you are assuming what Christ meant with the words 'it is finished'. Romans does not agree with that

Yes, what He was sent to do was also finished by Him. That is, to redeem His people by His blood, to atone for their sins, to sanctify them, and to perfect them.

 

[Arch Stanton]

As said, your claim has implications for 1 Tim. 2:3–4 as well. Which I will not be slow to remind you of whenever unbiblical notions like "free will" pop up in these discussions.

I'm not a Calvinist -- no tulip here

 

[Arch Stanton]

Yes, what He was sent to do was also finished by Him. That is, to redeem His people by His blood, to atone for their sins, to sanctify them, and to perfect them.

not according to St. Paul

 

[Johan]

I'm not a Calvinist -- no tulip here

Of course not, but you have just invalidated that passage as counterargument to the TULIP.

 

[Johan]

not according to St. Paul

Paul does not teach unfinished redemption.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Of course not, but you have just invalidated that passage as counterargument to the TULIP.

Could all mean a great amount or not?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Paul does not teach unfinished redemption.

and Christ was raised for our justification

 

[Johan]

Could all mean a great amount or not?

It could. It can also mean "of all kinds," as it does in 1 Tim. 2:3–4.

 

[Johan]

and Christ was raised for our justification

Indeed. No one was justified on the cross. We are justified by faith in our formerly crucified and now living Savior.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Indeed. No one was justified on the cross. We are justified by faith in our formerly crucified and now living Savior.

and if Christ had not been raised, your faith is vain, ...

so I wouldn't say 'finished' before the resurrection

The fourth cup may be finished though ?

 

[Johan]

and if Christ had not been raised, your faith is vain, ...

so I wouldn't say 'finished' before the resurrection

If Christ had not been raised, then our presumed Savior was a fake and there is no hope of a resurrection for us either. It is still a fact that Christ purchased us with His blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9), atoned for our sins through the shedding of His blood (Rom. 3:25), sanctified us (Heb. 10:10) and perfected us (Heb. 10:14) by His sacrificial death. Those acts were indeed finished.

The fourth cup may be finished though ?

Yeah, let us ignore the finality and efficacy of the cross of Christ and focus on your worthless "Eucharist" instead.

 

[Arch Stanton]

If Christ had not been raised, then our presumed Savior was a fake and there is no hope of a resurrection for us either. It is still a fact that Christ purchased us with His blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9), atoned for our sins through the shedding of His blood (Rom. 3:25), sanctified us (Heb. 10:10) and perfected us (Heb. 10:14) by His sacrificial death. Those acts were indeed finished.

so not finished until He was raised.... AMEN!

Yeah, let us ignore the finality and efficacy of the cross of Christ and focus on your worthless "Eucharist" instead.

Looks like you have a love/hate relationship

 

[Johan]

so not finished until He was raised.... AMEN!

Finished when He said that it was finished. Funny that language can be that simple and straightforward.

Looks like you have a love/hate relationship

With regard to Catholic doctrine, only contempt.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Finished when He said that it was finished. Funny that language can be that simple and straightforward.

and yet you don't understand Him.... ?‍

With regard to Catholic doctrine, only contempt.

Luke 23:34 ?

 

[JoeT]

If you don't have time to provide evidence for your bogus claims, then you shouldn't make your bogus claims in the first place.

You don't need to explain reality to most people.

No, I didn't do any such thing.
Why are you trying to make this about me, instead of defending your bogus claims? Clearly you have the time to do so, if you wanted.

I said "most favored", "beloved"; you compared her to the "greatness" of St. John the Evangelist; ergo conflation.

So Mary was a sinner.
Thanks for the admission.

How would she have ever known sin if she was justified at conception. a singular gift.

I don't.
Bearing false witness is a sin.
You need to repent.
Again, why are you trying to make this about me?
Oh, it's so you don't have to prove your bogus claims.... is an unBiblical figment of your imagination.

To bear false witness one must first holdup a falsehood. Your denial of Mary's state of "most favored" is denial, and is in Scripture.

UnBiblical.

If it's a figment of imagination, then I'm right there with the Early Fathers. Thanks for compliment.

Nope.
It refers to every single human.

It couldn't be referring to original sin, rather it was referring to actual sin. Because the except is Elias, right? Even if you won't admit it, right? But then you would be having an Apostle of Christ calling His mother a sinner. Well, if that ain't a howdy do?

Why don't you believe Paul?
Rom. 3:23 for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

So yes, that includes Elias.

Of course not.

I believe Christ.

But why are you running away from your false claims about Mary, in order to change the subject and talk about Elias?

Right here buckaroo.

JoeT

 

[Theo1689]

I said "most favored", "beloved";

So what?
John was "beloved" as well.
All Christians are "beloved by God".
Mary wasn't special.

Your denial of Mary's state of "most favored" is denial, and is in Scripture.

It's NOWHERE found in Scripture.
That's why you don't even try to defend it.
You know Romanism is bankrupt and indefensible.

If it's a figment of imagination, then I'm right there with the Early Fathers. Thanks for compliment.

Truth isn't determined by "the Early Fathers".
Truth is determined by SCRIPTURE.

It couldn't be referring to original sin, rather it was referring to actual sin. Because the except is Elias, right?

Where does Scripture teach that Elias was "sinless"?
You keep asserting this bogus claim.

Even if you won't admit it, right? But then you would be having an Apostle of Christ calling His mother a sinner. Well, if that ain't a howdy do?

I hate to break it to you, but you wife is a sinner.
Your children is a sinner.
Your priest is a sinner.
Even the pope is a sinner.

It's actually a GOOD thing to confess that you are a sinner.

Like the publican.... 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
LIke Paul, "I am the chief of sinners."