Monday, October 5, 2020

Answering Asaph Vapor on Blessed Virgin Mary and Church

Answering Dr. John Barnett: on Catholic Oral Tradition · his "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong" · on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happened with Constantine

Answering "Asaph Vapor": Answering Asaph Vapor · Continuing the Answer to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor's long answer, part I · On Papacy and Apostolic Succession to Asaph Vapor · Answering Asaph Vapor on Blessed Virgin Mary and Church · On Eucharist, Confession and some Other Matters, to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor refuted some more

«Since when Elizabeth reacted to Ark of Covenant? You are "begging the question".»

St. Elisabeth reacted to the presence of Blessed Virgin Mary AS King David had reacted to the OT Ark of the Covenant.

Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
II Kings 6:9 And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?
I Paralipomenon 13:12 And he feared God at that time, saying: How can I bring in the ark of God to me?

A lineup from EOC source (not RCC, but EOC) underlines the same thing and also gives another parallel between the three passages:

Orthodox Church Quotes : Theotokos as the Ark of the Covenant: Side-by-Side Comparision of Gospel of Luke to Old Testament Accounts

«You are surely a clown who assumes.»

Right ...

«Nowhere in the BIBLE says ""lady of Lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe." «

Church History says, Our Lady appeared in Guadalupe in 16th C. and gave an Amerindian Her image on the Tilmah, in Lourdes in 1858, in Fatima in 1917 (last apparition the day before Czar Nicolas celebrated the EOC feast Protection of the Theotokos on Julian cal. 1.X = Gregorian cal. 14.X).

«Nowhere in the BIBLE says Mary = ark of new covenant.»

I was looking for the OT parallels, when I found the Orthodox site, and I knew they existed.

«Pls prove from Scriptures! Dont "beg the question"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!»

If you had a sense for the Scriptures, and not an incoherent wavering between bare text and non-traditional conclusions, whichever suits your polemics against Catholicism best, you would know by now I have done so.

«You are assuming its true without any single scriptural proof clown!»

You pretend to know what I did and did not before hearing me out?

«Since when i say things arent in the text clown?»

Your manners are charming - aren't they?

«Pls list out»

1 When you claim II Kings 6:9 is not a parallel to Luke 1:43
2 When you claim I Paralipomenon 13:12 is not a parallel to Luke 1:43
3 When you claim the event in Luke 1:43 has no parallels in Church History afterwards or says nothing about these parallels.

"Since when i added things in text? Pls list out"

1 That ekklesia means any kind of unorganised or continuously reorganised "assembly" rather than a constitutional one
2 That Apocalypse 12 is about Israel
3 That offspring cannot mean spiritual such.

«1. Since when i said "means any kind of unorganised or continuously"?»

You are challenged in grammatical communication. I contrasted "unorganised" with "continuously reorganised". That means you are misquoting when cutting off after "continuously".

You imply it by pretending organisation does not matter, as long as it is believers.

«Original greek word Ekklesia means assembly of believers.»

You are also heavily challenged about etymology. Athenian ekklesia was not about believers. Spartan ekklesia was not about believers. Each of these ekklesiai which existed before the Christian ekklesia was about citizens. Now, citizens are not just "people who happen to speak Attic and adore Athena" or "people who happen to speak Laconic and adore Ares". The people who spoke Attic were organised according to diverse Athenian constitutions, from the one of King Cecrops to that of Perikles. The people who spoke Laconic were organised according to diverse Spartan constitutions, from Menelaus, over Heraclids, to Lycurgus. So, the Christian ekklesia likewise means people organised to a Christian constitution. Not just people who have in common to happen to be believers.

«Ekklesia means believers. Nothing to do with some Church institution. That's what i meant.»

Yes, and meaning that earns you the right to call yourself clown, if you have any shame!

«2. Mat 24, Daniel and Rev 5-19 all says its Israel.»

You have not shown everything in Rev 5-19 parallels Matthew 24. You have also not shown Matthew 24 speaks about Israel in the endtimes rather than the Church, which are "the rest of Her offpsring".

«3. Since when i said "Offspring cannot be spiritual"?»

I searched that phrase in vain on my previous response, which I published here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Continuing the Answer to Asaph Vapor

«Which part of the BIBLE says Mary made disciples? Where? Chapter verse?»

Jesus was Her disciple. And Joseph's too:

Luke 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart.

Gospeller Luke was Her disciple, as he basically here gives Her memory as his source for the facts.

The beloved disciple became Her disciple when becoming Her adopted son.

The Apocalypse 12 passage says She had more offspring, and we know this would mean spiritual, since even if She had had other children they were not persecuted, like the Church will be in the endtimes and has already been several times over.

«WHo are these spiritual offsprings? Where are they now ?»

Luke and John are in Heaven, several later ones are in heaven (and as you called saints "demons" you have spoken arrogant words against them, see little horn prophecy in Daniel), and those still on earth are the Church.

«Clearly you are plucking from the air without any Scriptural proof!»

If you didn't learn manners, you at least learned some rhetoric ...

«Yes i might not have mentioned the Scriptures behind what i said. Its a totally different topic. Longer than this.»

No comments: