Biblical Mary

[BreadOfLife]

So? None were righteous.
Did you miss the part...
Hypocrite Pharisees, Lost Jews, Gentiles worshiping false gods?

Right - according to YOU Protestants - this verses makes clear that NONE are righteous.
Soooo - WHY does James state that the prayers of a RIGHTEOUS person are very powerful (James 5:16)?

This correlates perfectly with Rev. 5:8 and the Heavenly intercession on our behalf.

People do not go to heaven.
The righteous are the Converted in Christ in heaven and on earth.

In YOUR bizarre world, they don't.
However - going to Heaven to be with Him for eternity is the hope of EVERY true follower of Christ (John 14:3).

Rev 5:8 ...fell down before the Lamb holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Why do you think saints in heaven are "interceding" for you?
I believe the "saints" in heaven are making supplications (a humble (bowing down) plea) TO the Lamb for the "unconverted" to come to the Truth of Jesus, the Lamb of God, that they become converted.

And that's why you are Scripturally ignorant.

Pay attention:
Rev. 5:8 states in NO uncertain terms that the bowls of incense being taken to God are the prayers of the SAINTS.
The unconverted are NOT called "saints" in the NT - ONLY those who are born again in Christ are referred to as "saints".

What s going on in this verse is intercession in its purest form.

 

[BreadOfLife]

TRUE
IMPOSSIBLE
TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Nowhere in the Bible is Mary called "the mother of our salvation" or "the mother of God". She is called "the mother of Jesus" and she had many children with Joseph after Jesus, her firstborn son.

It is highly significant that after Christ began His earthly ministry He never called Mary "Mother". Always "Woman".

Think about it -
If Jesus is our salvation, and Mary is His mother - that makes her the mother of our salvation.
Jesus is GOD, ergo, she is the mother of God. NOBODY is calling her the mother of the Trinity.

As for your statement is RED - yes, it is HIGHLY significant that He called her "Woman".
He is referencing the prophecy of Genesis.
Gen. 3:15
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.

Jesus was s Jew who lived the Law PERFECTLY. He followed the Commandments FLAWLESSLEY.
Exod. 20:21 commands Him to HONOR His father and mother. He would NEVER have called her anything out of dishonor.

On Calvary, while this prophecy is taking place, the Woman is present at her Son's side as He crushes the head of the serpent.
Now THAT is fulfillment.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Try to NOT wander OFF POINT ~
Stick to the FACTS ~

The FACT is:
* CONCEPTION IS: the act of:
Fertiliz-ING
Impregnat-ING

The FACT is:
* Your claims are clearly written in "your words"... post # 213 & post # 223

* QUOTE the Clear Biblical teaching:

* that: God performed the Act:
Of "Fertaliz-ING" Mary's Egg.

* that: God performed the Act:
OF "Impregnate-ING" Mary's Egg.

WRONG.

I gave you Scriptural proof tht God impregnated Mary and that SHE conceived in HER womb (Luke 1:31).
You don't have a Biblical leg to stand on . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

First I didn't write any questions in red.

Second I agree with Hislop and many many others that I cited who recognize the dagon miter as the Catholic miter.
Third We know anything written or filmed that criticizes Romanism will be considerd anti-Catholic morons, no matter how true.
Fourth: that is simply agreeing with a source that you only cited one person who disagrees. How is that bearing false witness against 1,000,000,000 people. I think you need to go and look up what bearing false witness actually means.

And the charge about teh miter goes all the way back to Eusebius, so He simply must be an anti catholic moron to you.

I think from now on I only wish to speak to unbiased historical people about me, and not anti-nolidad morons like you.

And your lying continues . . .

LIE @1 - The fact that you "agree" about the miter being a remnant of "Dagon worship" - even AFTER I completely debunked that myth is evidence of your lies.

LIE #2 - I didn't cite "only ONE" source who disagrees with Hislop.
Between @Mundo, myself and others - we have given you aver FIVE different sources - including one that you LIED about (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Finally - you keep using a totally ignorant term ("Romanism") yet you haven't explained that that means.
Care to enlighten me??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Once again let me correct your bearing false witness against me. I AM NOT ANTI-CATHOLIC, I AM ANTI CATHOLICISM. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW IF YOU WERE AN INTELLIGENT PERSON. But I fear you are more interested in just ranting and vomiting out ad-hominems than engaging in real discussion.

WRONG.

YOU qualify as an anti-Catholic because of ONE thing:
You LIE in order to make your arguments.

Only an anti-Catholic needs to resort to LIES to argue against the Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why should I?

Until you produce the criteria that is used to determine who is and who isn't a "credible" historical scholar, you seem intent on saying anyone I would list is not credible if they even look askance at teh catholic church . I believe th erm you used to describe anyone who disagrees with Romanism as an "anti-catholic" moron.

I already gave you the criteria - SEVERAL times now.
I said an UNBIASED HISTORICAL SOURCE.

Are you intelligent enough to read that?
I certainly hope so . . .

And sorry, for using teh term "Romanism", but it ti found in every "credible" dictionary and is defined as roman Catholicism. WHOOPS!!!!!

Soooo, if you were a Baptist - and I always referred to Baptists doctrines officially as "Incestuous Homosexual Sodomitism" - YOU would think that was okay??

Are you really that stupid - or is it just an act?

 

[Mungo]

Well I can't fix stupid as a radio counselor used to say. Dagon was represented as half man/half fish. His name means grain but that di dnot make Him the grain god as all those links I gave you showed. He is not a fish god either. He was the God of many nations, including parts of Roman territory. You can't see the forest for the trees.

I quoted before:
A possible etymology of the name Dagan from the West Semitic/Ugaritic root dgn, which can be translated as 'grain', and the Hebrew dāgōn, an archaic word for 'grain' (Black and Green 1998: 56), has tempted some scholars to assume that he played a role in vegetation/fertility, which might be confirmed by his son's, the West Semitic deity Ba'al, role as a vegetation deity (Black and Green 1998: 56). A 4th century AD tradition which places Dagan as a fish deity is erroneous (Black and Green 1998: 56).
Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses - Dagan (god)

But you would rather believe your Catholic hating web sites.

As I quoted but you would rather ignore
Oannes, in Mesopotamian mythology, an amphibious being who taught mankind wisdom. Oannes, as described by the Babylonian priest Berosus, had the form of a fish but with the head of a man under his fish’s head and under his fish’s tail the feet of a man. In the daytime he came up to the seashore of the Persian Gulf and instructed mankind in writing, the arts, and the sciences. Oannes was probably the emissary of Ea, god of the freshwater deep and of wisdom.
Oannes | Mesopotamian mythology

This all comes from Henry Layard whose excavated Ninevah and wrongly identified the image he found as Dagan.
But Ninevah was destroyed around 612 BC.
The Popes mitre evolved over time from the Jewish round form. It did not reach it's present form until the 12th century - 1800 years after Ninevah was destroyed. How did the Pope know anything about this fish cult of Oannes?

Ninevah was not excavated unti lthe 19th century - 700 years after the Pope's mitre took the current shape.
Your attempt to link Dagan to the Pope is utter nonsense.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And your lying continues . . .

LIE @1 - The fact that you "agree" about the miter being a remnant of "Dagon worship" - even AFTER I completely debunked that myth is evidence of your lies.

LIE #2 - I didn't cite "only ONE" source who disagrees with Hislop.
Between @Mundo, myself and others - we have given you aver FIVE different sources - including one that you LIED about (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Finally - you keep using a totally ignorant term ("Romanism") yet you haven't explained that that means.
Care to enlighten me??

YOu really are childish aren't you! If Romanism is good ewnough to be in the dictionary to be defined as Roman Catholicism too bad you are too thin skinned!

But no- I showed you evidence that said the miter is a remantr from Dagon worship. You choose to believe yours and you choose to just hurl ad-hominems against mine because they dare disagree with the might Bread of Life!

Romanism
[ˈrōməˌnizəm]
NOUN
dated

1. Roman Catholicism.

Romanism

Also found in: Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to Romanism: romanticist
Ro·man·ism
(rō′mə-nĭz′əm)
n. Offensive
Roman Catholicism.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Romanism
(ˈrəʊməˌnɪzəm)
n
(Roman Catholic Church) Roman Catholicism, esp when regarded as excessively or superstitiously ritualistic
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

So I guess to the mighty Bread of Life-- Collins English Dictionary and the American Heritage dictionary are uneducated rubes just like me!!!!! I aM IN GOOD COMPANY!!!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

WRONG.

YOU qualify as an anti-Catholic because of ONE thing:
You LIE in order to make your arguments.

Only an anti-Catholic needs to resort to LIES to argue against the Church.

YOU HAVEN'T SAHOWN ONE LIE YET. ALL YOU HAVE SHOWN IS A DISAGREEMENT AMONG SOURCES! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS A LIE- DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading minds is a sin- and you suck at it. I am anti-Catholicism, not anti catholic, but in your mania to be superior you cannot tell the difference.

I was Catholic for over two decades. I went to Catholic grammar and high school, went ot seminary one summer and desired to be a priest. My very Catholic Aunt led me to teh Lord and sent me a bible in the mail. It was simply reading teh bible that I realized that teh church I belonged to and loved had seriouys deoctrinal issues. I started talking to people after mass about things the Bible said.

I had a visit from a priest who told me to recant, leave, or face a dominican tribunal on the charges of promoting heresy. I left. So don't try to tell me I am anti catholic. YOpur arrogance and presumptiousness is a disgrace against you and god will call you to task for it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I already gave you the criteria - SEVERAL times now.
I said an UNBIASED HISTORICAL SOURCE.

Are you intelligent enough to read that?
I certainly hope so . . .

Soooo, if you were a Baptist - and I always referred to Baptists doctrines officially as "Incestuous Homosexual Sodomitism" - YOU would think that was okay??

Are you really that stupid - or is it just an act?

Now you make yourself a liar!

You have given no empirical produced standards that are used to determine who is crfedible and who is not and you know it. Stop lying!

And how do you know the authors of the britannica and other sources YOU deem credible are unbiased? Have you talked to them, interview them? read a letter they wrote saying they are unbiased or are you just spitballing? Every one is biased. Just because someone disagrees with you and you get your panties all in a wad over it doesn't make it untrue. So please stop with all the histrionics, they do not impress anyone, except maybe your alter ego mungo.

So you are equating a BISHOPS MITER TO BE AS SCANDALOUS AS ACCUSING BAPTIST OF INCESTUOUS HOMOSEXUALO SODOMISM? REALLY?????

But I am a Baptist and in cases of a couple Baptist churches I know of, for thise I would not necessarily disagree with you! but for th emost part, though you do have the superior mind as I am but an uneducated rube, I would ask for the evidence you found to make such an accusation!

See I can discuss without going ballistic as you do. You need to take some pro-zac orsomething to chill out.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I quoted before:
A possible etymology of the name Dagan from the West Semitic/Ugaritic root dgn, which can be translated as 'grain', and the Hebrew dāgōn, an archaic word for 'grain' (Black and Green 1998: 56), has tempted some scholars to assume that he played a role in vegetation/fertility, which might be confirmed by his son's, the West Semitic deity Ba'al, role as a vegetation deity (Black and Green 1998: 56). A 4th century AD tradition which places Dagan as a fish deity is erroneous (Black and Green 1998: 56).
Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses - Dagan (god)

But you would rather believe your Catholic hating web sites.

As I quoted but you would rather ignore
Oannes, in Mesopotamian mythology, an amphibious being who taught mankind wisdom. Oannes, as described by the Babylonian priest Berosus, had the form of a fish but with the head of a man under his fish’s head and under his fish’s tail the feet of a man. In the daytime he came up to the seashore of the Persian Gulf and instructed mankind in writing, the arts, and the sciences. Oannes was probably the emissary of Ea, god of the freshwater deep and of wisdom.
Oannes | Mesopotamian mythology

This all comes from Henry Layard whose excavated Ninevah and wrongly identified the image he found as Dagan.
But Ninevah was destroyed around 612 BC.
The Popes mitre evolved over time from the Jewish round form. It did not reach it's present form until the 12th century - 1800 years after Ninevah was destroyed. How did the Pope know anything about this fish cult of Oannes?

Ninevah was not excavated unti lthe 19th century - 700 years after the Pope's mitre took the current shape.
Your attempt to link Dagan to the Pope is utter nonsense.

A possible etymology. Okay so all this is a maybe based on your "credible" historical scholars?

But pictures of Dagon as half/man-half /fish are enough for me. I don't know if anyone worshipped this false god as a fish god, but they did worship this merman as a god.

 

[Webers_Home]

Because of Mary immaculate conception, Created free from original sin

Implication in Adam's transgression isn't inherited, nor can it be inherited,
from one's parents.

Take for example Eve. She was already in existence before Adam tasted the
forbidden fruit so it was too late for him to pass something new on to her by
means of the material taken from his body to construct hers.

Now, if you'll recall, nothing happened when Eve tasted the forbidden fruit.
She went right on in the nude unashamed. It wasn't till Adam tasted the
fruit that her feelings about nudity changed. This tells me-- along with Rom
5:12 --that Adam is the sole, and only, source of the ramifications
associated with eating the forbidden fruit.

The point to note from what I'm saying is that the ramifications of Adam's
act became ramifications for everybody the very instant in time that he
tasted the forbidden fruit -- no delay, no waiting period, and no exceptions,
i.e. children not even born yet are already implicated in Adam's act even
before they are conceived.

If perchance what I'm saying here turns out to be true, then the Vatican's
doctrine of the virgin birth contains a very significant error.
_

 

[BreadOfLife]

YOu really are childish aren't you! If Romanism is good ewnough to be in the dictionary to be defined as Roman Catholicism too bad you are too thin skinned!

But no- I showed you evidence that said the miter is a remantr from Dagon worship. You choose to believe yours and you choose to just hurl ad-hominems against mine because they dare disagree with the might Bread of Life!

Romanism
[ˈrōməˌnizəm]
NOUN
dated

1. Roman Catholicism.

Romanism
Also found in: Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to Romanism: romanticist
Ro·man·ism
(rō′mə-nĭz′əm)
n. Offensive
Roman Catholicism.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Romanism
(ˈrəʊməˌnɪzəm)
n
(Roman Catholic Church) Roman Catholicism, esp when regarded as excessively or superstitiously ritualistic
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

So I guess to the mighty Bread of Life-- Collins English Dictionary and the American Heritage dictionary are uneducated rubes just like me!!!!! I aM IN GOOD COMPANY!!!

I had to read this TWICE because I simply couldn't believe the sheer stupidity of your post.
Einstein - pay attention to what you just posted.

In your effort to "prove" to me that "Romanism" was a valid term - YOU posted from the dictionary:
*********************************************************************************
Romanism
Also found in: Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to Romanism: romanticist
Ro·man·ism
(rō′mə-nĭz′əm)
n. Offensive
Roman Catholicism.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Romanism
(ˈrəʊməˌnɪzəm)
n
(Roman Catholic Church) Roman Catholicism, esp when regarded as excessively or superstitiously ritualistic
***********************************************************************************
Do you see the text in RED??
In the depths of your ignorance - do you grasp what this is saying?

I didn't think so . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

YOU HAVEN'T SAHOWN ONE LIE YET. ALL YOU HAVE SHOWN IS A DISAGREEMENT AMONG SOURCES! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS A LIE- DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading minds is a sin- and you suck at it. I am anti-Catholicism, not anti catholic, but in your mania to be superior you cannot tell the difference.

I was Catholic for over two decades. I went to Catholic grammar and high school, went ot seminary one summer and desired to be a priest. My very Catholic Aunt led me to teh Lord and sent me a bible in the mail. It was simply reading teh bible that I realized that teh church I belonged to and loved had seriouys deoctrinal issues. I started talking to people after mass about things the Bible said.

I had a visit from a priest who told me to recant, leave, or face a dominican tribunal on the charges of promoting heresy. I left. So don't try to tell me I am anti catholic. YOpur arrogance and presumptiousness is a disgrace against you and god will call you to task for it.

No - I showed you a LIE.

I proved to you that Semiramis was married to another man - and that she ad Nimrod didn't even live in the same century.
@Mungo showed you the SAME proof.

I ALSO gave you historical evidence about the Miter - AND the cult of Dagon worshippers - and that there was NO way that the miter OR Catholicism could have been associated with them.
YOU have chosen to keep pushing the unsubstantiated LIES - and when called upon to offer unbiased historcal references - you FAIL to do that.

You've been given historical references including 4 Encyclopedias, ALL of Ralph Woodrow's research references - as well as proof from Encyclopedia Britannica - which YOU falsely stated was the source for your claim that Semiramis and Nimrod were married.

You're an anti=Catholic NOT because you "disagree" with the Catholic Church - but because you LIE about it.
Consider yourself historically-SPANKED . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now you make yourself a liar!

You have given no empirical produced standards that are used to determine who is crfedible and who is not and you know it. Stop lying!

And how do you know the authors of the britannica and other sources YOU deem credible are unbiased? Have you talked to them, interview them? read a letter they wrote saying they are unbiased or are you just spitballing? Every one is biased. Just because someone disagrees with you and you get your panties all in a wad over it doesn't make it untrue. So please stop with all the histrionics, they do not impress anyone, except maybe your alter ego mungo.

So you are equating a BISHOPS MITER TO BE AS SCANDALOUS AS ACCUSING BAPTIST OF INCESTUOUS HOMOSEXUALO SODOMISM? REALLY?????

But I am a Baptist and in cases of a couple Baptist churches I know of, for thise I would not necessarily disagree with you! but for th emost part, though you do have the superior mind as I am but an uneducated rube, I would ask for the evidence you found to make such an accusation!

See I can discuss without going ballistic as you do. You need to take some pro-zac orsomething to chill out.

Ummmm, aren't YOU the one who tried to claim that Encyclopedia Britannica agreed with YOU and Hislop?
Now, they're "MY" source?? Sooooo, are you now recanting your false claim that this encyclopedia shows that Nimrod and Semiramis were married??

Are you even capable of NOT continually vomtting out lies??
Good grief . . .

 

[Taken]

Right - according to YOU Protestants - this verses makes clear that NONE are righteous.

Uh huh.

Sooo - WHY does James state that the prayers of a RIGHTEOUS person are very powerful (James 5:16)?

Ofcourse, Because Protestants Know, Becoming a "saint", is according to Gods Way,
(not according to Catholic men deciding what men are "officially" "saints")

This correlates perfectly with Rev. 5:8 and the Heavenly intercession on our behalf.

LOL - Heavenly intercession IS the Lord Gods OFFERINGS and WORKS:
His Word, His Blessings, His Gifts, His Body, His Blood, His Forgiveness, His Salvation, His Quickening....

Protestant saints ON Earth send their PRAYERS "TO" the Lord God IN Heaven, Full well KNOWING Gods Truth; THAT:

John 9:
[31] Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

We Protestants also KNOW,:
Saints on earth pray "FOR"... People on earth, that they might be healed. (You know, maybe not...Protestants know...Healed; is Saved and Quickened).

James 5:
[16] Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.


The Prayers OF the saints, are presented to the Lord God...BY ... Angels!

Tob 12:
[15] I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.

Rev.8
[4] And the smoke of the incense, which came with theprayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

In YOUR bizarre world, they don't.

YOU say, In MY BIZARRE WORLD, People do not go to Heaven....??
Seems you disagree with the Lord also.

John 3:
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

However - going to Heaven to be with Him for eternity is the hope of EVERY true follower of Christ (John 14:3).

Protestants know, mans body's do not come down from heaven, nor go up to heaven.
Saved souls, Quickened spirits go to Heaven in a place which is prepared to receive and keep them....UNTIL the Earth is Renewed.
A saved mans eternity IS ON A RENEWED EARTH, WITH HIM also on Earth!

John 14:
[3] And if I go and prepare a place for you,
(Saved soul, Quickened spirit)
I will come again,
(To where they last saw Him...in the clouds;)
(Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and {B] a cloud received him [/B] out of their sight.)

John 14:3 Continued;
and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
(In the clouds, and returning from the clouds "WITH HIM"...to the earth).

And that's why you are Scripturally ignorant.

Nothing I have said is NOT verified in Scripture.
However you do repeatedly show your own ignorance of NOT spiritually understanding Scripture.

Pay attention:
Rev. 5:8

states in NO uncertain terms that the bowls of incense being taken to God are the prayers of the SAINTS.
The unconverted are NOT called "saints" in the NT - ONLY those who are born again in Christ are referred to as "saints".

You pay attention..
WHAT (ie the prayers OF the Saints) was NEVER disputed.

NO ONE called the Unconverted "saints"..

You pay attention...
What YOU PREACH is disputed.

You preach PRAYING "TO" Saints...
Yet NOTHING you presented, speaks of anyone PRAYING TO SAINTS.

What s going on in this verse is intercession in its purest form.

What's going on is YOU PRAY TO saints...
You use Heavenly Saints as YOUR intercessory.

I, AS a saint, PRAY to the Lord God, that men who are NOT saints, might be healed, with the Lords intercession, and become a saint themselves.
As Always, Scripturally taught the intercessory FOR the Unsaved... IS: JESUS.
Gods High Priest.
(Not the Law, Not men, Not Angels, Not Saints, Not men appointed Priests)...

Heb 7:
[25] Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

 

[Illuminator]

If perchance what I'm saying here turns out to be true, then the Vatican's
doctrine of the virgin birth contains a very significant error.
_

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth doesn't belong to the Vatican, it belongs to all of Christendom: Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic and even the
store-front-on-weekends variety. Because it's the truth. It didn't become dogmatized until it was challenged by Gnostic heretics, the ones that St. John and St. Paul mention. I diverse.
I don't see anything sacred about a reusable incubator. It makes it possible for the Ark of the Covenant to be used for storing sandals. "Nothing earthly can be sacred! All flesh and meat is evil!" was foundational for the Gnostics of biblical times. I see shadows of the same heresy that contradicts what the reformers taught. They were not wrong about the Virgin Birth, and they were not wrong about Perpetual Virginity, accepted by every denomination on the planet. But something happened in the mid 18th century that changed all that. The false philosophies of the post-enlightenment era had their influence with a small number of liberals re-writing the reformation. Concerned conservative Protestants formed the fundamentalist movement to safeguard 5 basics. Modernism was condemned as "The Synthesis of all Heresies" within the same time frame. Intelligent Christians, like @Enoch111 have been deceived by a 200 year old man made tradition and won't admit it. If he can find any ecclesiastical community of any flavor that opposed the PVM before 1850, I'll retract.

 

[Taken]

WRONG.

I gave you Scriptural proof tht God impregnated Mary and that SHE conceived in HER womb (Luke 1:31).
You don't have a Biblical leg to stand on . . .

It's sad you not only do not understand Scripture, neither do you understand the difference between "conception" and "conceived". You were once give the detailed difference....but per usual to deflect from your own ignorance you retort with name calling and snarky comments.

Marys Virgin Womb received Exactly what came forth out from God, in the manner God established, and Sent TO Her Virgin Womb, By the Power of God.

There was no sex, no fertilization of Marys egg, no mysterious secret conception.

The Scriptures are clear...
God in Heaven, Sent forth out of HIS MOUTH, His Holy Word.
His Holy Word was SENT to a particular womans undefiled Virgin Woman.
(The particular woman was a most highly favorable choice... Jewish, Faithful, Virgin, naturally born in Judah, Betrothed to a man of the House of David).

That HOLY THING, (Gods Word), Was Sent to Mary's Virgin Womb....
In a BODY God prepared, of Flesh and Blood,
IN the "LIKENESS", AS and earthly man.

That HOLY THING, revealed in the Likeness As a man, Himself SAID, He came forth out from God.

This has all been shown you before with every correlating Scripture....and per usual fallen on your deaf ears.

You preaching Mary was sinnless, and God fertalized her egg to create a half human half spirit thing....is utter nonsense and not remotely what the Word of God teaches.

 

[Wrangler]

There was no sex, no fertilization of Marys egg, no mysterious secret conception.

The Scriptures are clear...

The scriptures are no where near that specific. No mysterious secret conception? You are seriously parsing words forms, conceived and conception?!

The idea that there is anything wrong with a married woman having sex is absurd and such prudeness turns off unbelievers, who end up mocking such absurdity.

If there was no fertilization of Mary’s egg she was only a surrogate mother. The Bible is clear that Mary was Jesus’ mother - no surrogate qualifier.

This made up doctrine about Mary is bizarre and dishonorable. I doubt there is so much talk about any other man’s mother’s sex life. Honestly, I find it repugnant and far below the dignity of Christ or what his followers ought to strive for.

 

[Webers_Home]

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth doesn't belong to the Vatican, it belongs
to all of Christendom.

Seeing as how Christianity has not yet become Orwellian in the USA, then I
choose to exercise my freedom to reject the Vatican's claim to be Jesus'
"Party" viz: his central source of truth on Earth.

The Vatican's Christianity is not my Christianity.
_