roman catholics..........?

Question

.

Can anyone show from the Holy Bible that/of

1) an OT prophecy that the Messiah will be born of a "'sinless immaculate'", instead of a '"virgin'";
if not how is it every prophecies speak of His being born of a 'virgin' and not an 'immaculate'??

2) that Mary is not a sinner despite she offer sin offering (Luke 2, ie the two turtle doves, one for burnt offering and the other for SIN OFFERING) and confessing she needed a Saviour (Luke 1:46-47)

3) the Saint Peter is petra (when Cephas in Aramaic was interpreted by the VERY MOUTH of the Lord Jesus as pet'ros, a stone John 1:42).

Simon = Cephas = petr'os (Jesus interpretation of the Aramaic word Cephas) = a stone

Matt 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art pet'ros (a stone), and upon this petra (πέτρα, ROCK,ie upon Jesus Christ Himself) I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Any roman catholic even bother/willing to repent???


Balaam's A S S had spoken


.

Source:

Authorized Version

.

.


for Pete K



That is why your firm recalcitrance and rebellion.

Jesus interpreted Cephas for us in John 1:42, even your Catholic bible says so (1899 Doauy Rheims)

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (ie petros).

Cephas, is interpreted as petros


You dare resist the Aramaic interpretation of the Lord Jesus and claim to submit to Him and His Lordship??


Like the times of old.....1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee ....


.

Answer 1

They won't budge man - all that apostolic/oral tradition and stuff.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

BTW and don't forget Luke 1:48

Luk 1:48 For he hath regarded ***the low estate*** of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Answer 2

I agree that there are many problems in translation and meaning from the original words Jesus spoke to what we have now in so many versions of the Bible. This has caused and is still causing more confusion in belief along with catechists, teachers and preachers projecting their own opinion instead of what was actually said and done as handed down from the Apostles and Jesus. The old Latin Rite was very close to the Ancient Orthodox, and now it has all been watered down and changed again, to accommodate anything going. Aren't the people supposed to conform and convert to the Church instead of the Church conforming and converting to the people? (As for Peter, Jesus never said anything about a Pope-leader who is elevated above everyone else; I see Peter as beginning and setting the foundation within the Apostles, however Peter was not the first Apostle, but Andrew was and he was preaching in all the surrounding areas. Peter's FAITH was an example to the others when he CONFESSED "You are the Lord") It seems there have been Popes in the past who really didn't cherish their position if they believed it was successor to Peter and Vicar of Christ or they would not have permitted so much wrong and corruption to enter! We must return to our roots, and start cherishing properly what was left to us from the ones who were there.....

Answer 3

Petros vs Petra Jesus spoke aramaic not Greek. The Aramaic leaves no room for the Petros/Petra distinction. In Aramaic the work for rock is Kepha(rock) and upon this Kepha(rock) I will build my church.

Why does the Greek use two different words? because the Greek word for rock is feminine. The translator gave petra a masculine ending and rendered it petros. Petros was the preexisting word meaning "small stone".

It seems Balaam's A S S is still an a s s

Answer 4

Your "authorized version" doesn't pass muster, and your translation suffers from a number of common defects that have always been integral to protestant translations.

In short, you can't tell the difference between Peter the Rock, and Christ the Rock ... who are two totally different types of rocks.

And the last time I checked, Abram got a new name when he was given a new destiny by God. Jacob was given a new name when he was given a new destiny by God. Simon was given a name when he was given a new destiny by God.

And Peter was the ONLY one of the apostles who received a new name.

This, PLUS the simple facts of history, provide all the ACTUAL proof necessary (for sane people, anyway) that Peter was precisely who the Catholic church always said he is.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not by following artificial fables made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ: but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice, we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.
2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Meanwhile, there's NO DOUBT that YOU have been aptly named.

Answer 5

Which Holy Bible are you referring to ?

Already in the beginning God had elected Mary to her unique vocation in the scheme of salvation.It is the obscure people whom he chooses for his work. We are not wrong in believing that long ages before she was conceived in the womb of Anna, Mary was ontologically conceived and sanctified for the divine purpose - Angels visited the aged and barren parents. Mary was conceived the same way Jesus was,by the power of the Holy Spirit,That is why she is The Immaculate. Conception.

All men and women are children of God. The holy Jews carried each first born son to the Temple and offered him to God.Then in his place ,they gave God a lamb or if they were poor, a pair of white doves.So Mary carried her Son to the Temple. She offered Him to God.Then,because she was poor,she offered in His place two white doves.This has nothing to do with sin.

I think you are the one who should be repenting.You are offending God and Mary,but you are too blind to see it. You live in a fantasy world controlled by your Bible which is probably inaccurate anyway.If you do not understand Mary then say nothing .And if Catholics are Wrong in their beliefs,why should you care.You are leaving yourself open to ridicule and you don't even see that. The problem is you can't get your head out of the Bible. Was your Bible actually written by Jesus himself? If not then it could be full of inaccuracies ,but you don't care do you?.Many things have happened since the Bible was written ,you should at least investigate them. And Peter IS the rock that Christ built his church on. Why do you think he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven ? You will say anything to discredit the Catholic Church.You should be praying for forgiveness instead.

Answer 6

I`m orthodox. The true faith.
1. The word for virgin come from Septuaginta. Septuaginta is first translation from aramaic in greek language. It was did by 70 rabins. One of them has this word, which was virgin. Each day he translate like pure girl. And in the morning it was deleted. And so on for a lot of time. And when he wrote virgin (because his mind wasn`t accept this translation) that word ramaind up to now. That rabin is the old man who receive our Lord in the Temple. His name is Simeon the elder.

2. The orthodox recognize the Mary like Theotokos, but she had the Adam sin. So Mary is not Imaculate. That dogma is in CC and it come only 300 years ago.

3. I don`t undestand the problem ...

Kyrie eleison

Answer 7

You asked for evidence from scripture to support Catholic beliefs. Not a problem.

www.scripturecatholic.com.

You'll find everything you need there to answer whatever questions you have about the Catholic faith WITH scriptural support.

God bless.

Answer 8

Thank you for your thoughtful question.

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches the Blessed Virgin Mary _did_ require a Savior, as did all of humanity born since the Fall of Man. That Savior was our Lord Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, that Mary was redeemed by Jesus just as we all were, and her redemption took the form of a special dispensation such that from the moment of Mary's conception in her mother's womb, she was free from all taint of sin. This was ascribable to Christ's sacrifice which even so lay yet in the future, for time and causality do not bind the workings of God (as they do ours.)

Perhaps another answerer more knowledgable than I will be able to refer you to any O.T. prophecies concerning Our Lady. I know only that when the Angel Gabriel greeted her, he addressed her as "full of grace". (Opening chapters of Luke) The Catholic Church teaches that no sinner can be "full of grace", such that an angel would greet them in this way. Since an angel is God's own messenger, and would not mistake a sinner for one filled with grace, it follows, therefore, that Our Lady had received from God the grace of freedom from sin, but only in virtue of the anticipated redemption by her Son.

Thank you again for your question, and for reading my answer. May God bless you.

Answer 9

I was baptised as a catholic and went to a catholic primary school but stopped believing in god when I was 7. Just shows the amazing pulling power of catholicism really. Sick of it after 2 years bein taught it, hah.

Answer 10

I have much of which to repent ... but these things are not among them. Sorry.