(Ron) Borgia to Ron
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Wed, 6 May 1998 18:11:49 -0400 (00894510709, 19980506215946.AAA9862@briandea)
RICK G
#1
Well Ron, just off the top of my head: the bible teaches that only Jesus was
without sin, not Jesus AND Mary, as you catlics like to believe. When,
in 1850, Pope Pius X (not sure about this pope's name) pronounced,
ex-cathedra, the dogma of the immaculate conception -- or is it contraption?
;-) -- it was stated that the Holy Catholic Church has always believed and
taught that Mary was sinless. My guess is that this would include Borgia, and
that Borgia would have taught this, since Pope Pius said the church ahd
always believed and taught this doctrine. Now here's what the bible says
about this so-called dogma:
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have
before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are ALL under sin;
10 As it is written, There is NONE righteous, NO, NOT ONE:
11 There is NONE that understandeth, there is NONE that seeketh after
God.
<snipped>
23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Emphasis
mine)
Notice Ron, that in this context, the "all" of verse 23 is all-inclusive.
That means that unless an exception is made, that is, Jesus being
without sin, no one, not even Mary, is exempt. Read on:
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR. (Emaphasis mine)
Now Ron, who but a sinner would call God her SAVIOUR?!?!? Keep reading
Ron, and learn from your own scriptures:
Luke 2:21 ¶ And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising
of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days of HER PURIFICATION according to the law of
Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to
the Lord;
Now Ron, compare this with:
Leviticus 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have
conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven
days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be
unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three
and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two
weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her
purifying threescore and six days.
12:6 ¶ And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or
for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt
offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, *FOR A SIN OFFERING*, unto
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: (Emphasis
mine)
Ron, have you noticed Lev. 12:6 (just above)? It says that the offering
Mary was to present on the eighth day, when the presentation occurred in the
temple, was to be AN OFFERING FOR **SIN**. Did you get that last word?
SIN!!!
Now Ron, try to follow me here. Borgia, according to Pius, believed and
taught the immaculate conception, even though it only became "official"
dogma in 1850. This means that he was in direct contravention of
apostolic teachings on Mary being sinless. Moreover, Jesus is the ONLY
exception that is ever made in the bible as to men being sinners. There is not
one single verse that teaches Mary, or anyone else except Jesus, was
sinless. In fact, the bible teaches the very opposite. Ergo, Borgia mislead the
faithful.
Now for #2
I never claimed, at any time, that the bible required elders or bishops
to be sinless. This is a strawman you've made up to try and discredit my
arguments, and it isn't even a good one.
What I said was this: that the qualifications of an elder, a bishop and
a deacon, were very clear that those, and only those who were BLAMELESS
(Tit 1:6; 1Tim 3:2) and "[h]olding fast the faithful word..." (Titus 1:9; 1Tim
3:9), could hold this office. So Ron, instead of simply objecting to my
post with a strawman argument, why don't you carefully read the context and
show me where I'm wrong. And please spare me the pre-digested mush that
has been fed to you by the Holey Catholic Church. I already know what they
teach, I was a catlic for 32 years before I renounced that church when I
became an evangelical Christian. Show me the apostolic teaching that would
allow a man like Borgia to rightfully hold the office of first bishop of the
Christian church.
Borgia was a political leader and a warrior betwen the years 1476? -
1507. Can you show me, in the biblical passages cited above, how a man who
was a military leader could be a bishop, when the bible teaches that a bishop
must NOT be a striker (1Tim 3:3), AND must have a good report from those outside (1Tim
3:7). History knows the Borgias as being treacherous, full of
intrigue (lies), bent on political power and willing to do almost anything to
achieve it? I await your reply.
RON
If you interpret the word literally instead of as a generalization
then Jesus (God) could not be sinless. You also mix ritual impurity with
sinfulness. You atheist guys love to take two different words and equate
them in order to make a point or find a contradiction. Don't you see how
ritual impurity and sin differ? If you can't grasp this simple concept
then I give up!
If Borgia "taught" the Immaculate Conception infallibly, then it was
not necessary for it to be declared later. Can you show evidence that he
did? Regardless this would not have been "heresy", in fact it was
declared to be doctrine. One thing you seem to misunderstand is how an
infallible proclamation or ruling of a council works. It does not create
new doctrine, but in most cases officially verifies previous teaching
when it is called into question.
Timothy calls for Bishops to be "blameless". These requirements are
obviously the ideal. But is anyone truly "blameless"? OK, Jesus and Mary
for you literalists. But where does it say he should be deposed if he
sins or becomes "blame"-worthy in any way? His occupation before he
becomes a bishop would not exclude him from the position. Peter, at the
least, cut off a guys ear before being given the leadership of the
Church.
OK, (though Timothy 3:3 doesn't say "striker" in my transaltion) it
says he must not "BE" a striker. Not that he must not "HAVE BEEN" one.
For all your high-falutin terminology, such as "straw-man", you
certainly don't seem to be able to argue logically!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com