2 questions for non-catholics, that were always on my mind as a former non-catholic...

[joe370]

joe370;8448379:

According to Strong’s concodance the word charitoo G5487 is used in both Luke 1:28 and Eph.1:6

Luk 1:28 And 2532 the angel 32 came in 1525 unto 4314 her 846, and said 2036 , Hail 5463 , **[thou that art] highly favoured5487 **

, the Lord 2962 [is] with 3326 thee 4675: blessed 2127 [art] thou 4771 among 1722 women 1135.

Eph 1:6 To 1519 the praise 1868 of the glory 1391 of his 846 grace 5485, wherein 1722 3739 he hath made5487 0 us 2248 accepted5487 in 1722 the beloved 25 .

Agreed. kecharitomene however, is only used in Luke 1.

 

[joe370]

joe370;8448379:

According to Strong’s concodance the word charitoo G5487 is used in both Luke 1:28 and Eph.1:6

Luk 1:28 And 2532 the angel 32 came in 1525 unto 4314 her 846, and said 2036 , Hail 5463 , **[thou that art] highly favoured5487 **

, the Lord 2962 [is] with 3326 thee 4675: blessed 2127 [art] thou 4771 among 1722 women 1135.

Eph 1:6 To 1519 the praise 1868 of the glory 1391 of his 846 grace 5485, wherein 1722 3739 he hath made5487 0 us 2248 accepted5487 in 1722 the beloved 25 .

Of course grace is substituted with favored. If grace and favor are one and the same then I wonder why they just didn’t use the word grace as they did the 27 other times? Oh well…

Would it be ok to translate Eph. 6 this way: To the praise of the glory of his favor wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

[Ginger2]

…Do you EVER do research Ginger?

Well, that sounds a bit condescending. I certainly hope that wasn’t your intent. But either way, If I am not mistaken, the questions posed were addressed to Protestants.

I answered from a Protestant view. Protestants follow Scriptures, not Catholic Traditions. Your quotes from men which are not clearly found in the Holy Scriptures are nothing more than opinions and speculation to us. Why would you suggest I use Catholic traditions to tell you what Protestants believe?

Yes, I have researched much and when I want to “debate” a subject with a Catholic I use both Scripture and Catholic Tradition as well as valid history.

However, I did not post to debate, but simply answer a question about Protestant reasoning.

.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Well, that sounds a bit condescending. I certainly hope that wasn’t your intent. But either way, If I am not mistaken, the questions posed were addressed to Protestants.

I answered from a Protestant view. Protestants follow Scriptures, <—Not really Ginger not Catholic Traditions. Your quotes from men which are not clearly found in the Holy Scriptures are nothing more than opinions and speculation to us. Why would you suggest I use Catholic traditions to tell you what Protestants believe?

Yes, I have researched much and when I want to “debate” a subject with a Catholic I use both Scripture and Catholic Tradition as well as valid history.

However, I did not post to debate, but simply answer a question about Protestant reasoning.

.

If it were true that Protestants “follow Scripture” they’d not deny Real Presence. There are some non Catholics who believe in Real Presence and reject the symbolic stuff but very few. Maybe you DO believe in Real Presence though?

John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.Meat INDEED Ginger…not meat symbolically
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Have you read the Protevangelum of James…here it is…newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

 

[AbideWithMe]

If your learning in this area includes Jewish studies, as you state, you’re probably aware that Judaism (99% of it: it’s NEVER 100% if we’re talking about Jewish teaching) does not believe we are born in original sin. It believes we are all born free of sin. However, the majority of Jews also believe we acquire an “evil inclination,” which accompanies our innate “good inclination.” This evil inclination is not in itself sinful. On the contrary, it is necessary for our earthly survival. However, when engaged in excessively or inappropriately, it becomes sinful. For example, hunger is part of our evil inclination, which demands selfish satisfaction. This is normal and necessary for us to live. Nonetheless, hunger can become gluttony, which is sinful. Further, the evil inclination is necessary for us to learn to control. This “taming” of our evil tendencies by means of concentrated effort is no easy task and may require many attempts. But, according to Judaism, the effort involved helps us become closer to G-d. If we were simply given only good tendencies, we would have no inner conflict or struggle, would ultimately learn nothing, and never grow in our devotion and love of G-d. So, if your faith believes in original sin, be happy you were not born otherwise, and don’t complain about being tempted by sin: it is G-d’s means of teaching us to draw closer to Him.

Well said, Meltzerboy, especially the last few sentences. Yes, if I recall correctly, the “evil inclination” is the “yetzer ha ra”? I found that very interesting in Judaism. To be honest, the doctrine of original sin as inherited guilt has never made much sense to me, in either its Catholic or Protestant formulation, while the Orthodox Christian or Jewish understanding (not that I’m conflating the two), seems more like reality to me…just my opinion.

And others here, what Meltzerboy has said about the worth of the growth toward devotion brought about by our struggles is part of why I question that Mary had to have been born free of original sin…I do see the struggle as a necessary part of our humanity, and perhaps the only way God can teach us what love truly is. So to say Mary was born without any inclination to sin seems to make her hard for me to relate to as a human. I don’t mean to say I absolutely disbelieve God could not have created that way; it’s more that I’d say (speaking for myself alone): Okay, maybe the Immaculate Conception is really how God chose to work, but at this point I don’t see why it would have been necessary.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Protestants follow Scriptures, not Catholic Traditions.

I find this statement to be a bit ironic, seeing as how one must rely on “Catholic Tradition” to know what books are/are not Scripture in the first place.

 

[joe370]

I find this statement to be a bit ironic, seeing as how one must rely on “Catholic Tradition” to know what books are/are not Scripture in the first place.

As a former protestant that was the first thing that occurred to me.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Jesus refers to it as sleep.
Jn.11
11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

I don’t think you understood my question. The reference you have given is simply to the raising to earthly life of Lazarus…and, evidently Christ wanted to make sure he was dead in the view of the bystanders (he stinks), before He brought him back to life.

This has nothing to do with assuming someone (Mary) into Heaven, body and soul.

You take my breath away with the potential of your assertion. Permit me to briefly explain Catholic belief and teaching, taught from earliest times by the Fathers of the Church:

Normally (not Mary and Elijah), when one dies, the soul is separated from the body. The body dies, decomposes and returns to dust. The soul is immediately judged and consigned to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory. When Christ comes for the Final Judgement, all bodies of the dead will be brought back to life and reunited with the soul of each body These people, along with everyone still living, will be judged by the Lord (Matthew, 25), and the COMBINED bodies and souls will be eternally consigned to either Heaven or Hell. Purgatory ceases to exist.

It is Catholic belief that, once Adam and Eve sinned, Heaven was closed to all souls, with the potential exception of Elijah, and all were assigned a place of waiting…waiting for the Redeemer. Even in this waiting place, there was evidently a place where righteous people were separated from the unrighteous, as told in the parable of Lazarus and Dives. But that was a parable, and has no bearing on the closure of Heaven.

When Jesus died, we believe (Creed) he “descended to the dead” and rose from the dead on the third day after He died. If you have access to a copy of the Liturgy of The Hours (mine is single volume, Daughters of St. Paul), in the Office of Readings you will find an ancient homily for the Easter Vigil, which recounts Jesus meeting Adam in this “dead” place. Jesus has come to liberate Adam (and all who wait) so they may be judged and enter Heaven (or maybe sent to Hell). Death is defeated by the Resurrection; Heaven is opened by the rising of Christ from the dead.

Now, you are free to believe what you may personally believe, but I think you will find this Truth has been taught for almost 2,000 years, including by those who knew Christ personally. The Catholic Church does not “invent” its teaching; it is faithful to all that has been revealed up to the death of John the Evangelist.

You may investigate these Truths further in the online ***Catechism of the Catholic Church ***(with detailed references and footnotes linked to Scripture). Please start around Paragraph 1005 for this discussion. The link is scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Also, you deprive yourself of much knowledge by depending completely upon a Book which was not compiled until years after the Catholic Church was founded. It is true, as noted by an apologist, that the Catholic Church is NOT a “Church of the Bible”, but the Bible is a book of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the CC should be given some precedence, in your mind, for the official Catholic interpretation of the Bible. We don’t interpret it individually, as Peter advises against in one of his Letters. The knowledge which you do not possess comes from Catholic Tradition, some in letters and directions, some in prayers, and some spoken. For an example of the last, please refer to Mark, Chapter 4, verses 33-34 (NAB). If all we had to go on was the parables, we would be paupers, indeed.

I think you have a love of learning, from your posts (a bit argumentative, maybe). Take your time, read from 2,000 years of study, wisdom and teaching. Do read and tell us what the Reformers believed. We will be here to listen, discuss, and, maybe, challenge you.

Go in the peace of G-d!

Jim

 

[E.E.N.S]

As a former protestant that was the first thing that occurred to me.

Yeah, I am a convert as well!

 

[Jeffe]

To answer in the most general and vague way…“protestants”, sometimes also referred to as “christians”, “evangelicals”, “non-catholics (which include other religions)” have many opinions about Mary. Not all are consistent with Catholic belief, not all are well expressed. So, part of the answer to your question is…other questions:

Do they even believe in “original sin”?

Do they believe in sin, period?

Do they believe Mary had sexual relations with Joseph AFTER Jesus was born?

Do they believe Mary had “other children”?

Do they believe that Mary was, really, no one “special”, except that she carried the Child Jesus to term?

Many Protestants (true use of the word), like Lutherans, have very similar beliefs to Catholic belief. Then, as Richard has pointed out above, many are distrustful of Catholics who see Mary in every stain on a table cloth, and who SEEM to adore her by their excessive devotion vis-s-vis Jesus, the Father and the Spirit.

Vague as I could make it…sorry.

Peace.

Agreed, many denominations don’t even have an exact stance on the matter, let alone many other subjects.

You might want to narrow your question down to a specific denomination of the Protestant movement. The basic stance of some denominations is to recognize Jesus is our Lord and Savior…period.

The rest is up to your interpretation, thus “Sola Scriptura.”

No offense to certain denominations with specific doctrine on the matter.

 

[Jeffe]

My own personal belief is that Joseph had a wife who bore him children and when she died he married Mary. Joseph seems to have been quite a bit older than Mary and It also appears that he was long dead before Christ started his mission. So Christ probably did have Brothers and Sisters Step Brothers and Sisters.

What lead you to believe Joseph was married before Mary?

Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” are other family members (cousins), as was the common reference in writing during that time.

Just an inquiry from a former Presbyterian

 

[E.E.N.S]

Okay, maybe the Immaculate Conception is really how God chose to work, but at this point I don’t see why it would have been necessary.

The Catholic position is not so much that it was necessary, but that it was fitting.

Here is a quick clip from NewAdvent:

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.” It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I find this statement to be a bit ironic, seeing as how one must rely on “Catholic Tradition” to know what books are/are not Scripture in the first place.

Along with the ironic fact that IF you rely on totally on Scripture you HAVE to also allow for tradition…Scripture calls for traditions of both word and letter.

2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

[pablope]

Well, that sounds a bit condescending. I certainly hope that wasn’t your intent.

I answered from a Protestant view. Protestants follow Scriptures, not Catholic Traditions.

 

[RICKY_RASPER]

If it were true that Protestants “follow Scripture” they’d not deny Real Presence. There are some non Catholics who believe in Real Presence and reject the symbolic stuff but very few. Maybe you DO believe in Real Presence though?

Protestants do follow the doctrine of Real Presence in Communion. It is the doctrine of Transubstantiation they do not follow.
As far as I am aware Catholic Answers is a forum for discussing Roman Catholic beliefs NOT attacking Protestant ones, though some seem to think other faiths are fair game.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

 

[gerhardc]

Excuse me if I missed a post and someone has already pointed this out, but the answer seems rather obvious to me:

Martin Luther was raised Catholic and believed everything the RC taught until he became upset with a few men who were, in his opinion, playing on the fears of unsuspecting naive christians for their own personal gain. When he tried to report the offenses to the pope and it back-fired on him - that is when he left the church.

So, it wasn’t a matter of a man denying everything he believed all his life, but a matter of trying to bring the people back into truth.

The idea that Mary was a woman in need of a redeemer, born with the same sin nature as every other human being, (in their minds) was just part of discovering you have been lied to (their opinion, not my accusation) and then searching to find out what else may be amiss in the teachings they once received without question.

In-other-words, the teachings of the Catholic Church came under question and these men began to scrutinized everything they once believed to determine what was and wasn’t true as they no longer believed they could trust the RC. It didn’t happen in an instance, but over a long period of time.

Perhaps, if Luther had lived longer, he would have also taught Mary was a sinner like everyone else. IDK

Ginger, I believe you have answered the question correctly and succinctly. Thank you.

Regarding the original questions (pardon if this has been raised before please), what should be made of this verse (Romans 3:23): “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” - the operate word being “all”?

 

[gerhardc]

I find this statement to be a bit ironic, seeing as how one must rely on “Catholic Tradition” to know what books are/are not Scripture in the first place.

I would guess that most Protestants don’t see the list of books contained in the Bible as a function of anyone’s tradition but by inspiration of the Holy Spirit instead. Moreover, being Protestant doesn’t mean that all work done by the early Christians is deemed invalid. Probably, the concern would not be with tradition per se but with the seemingly great reliance placed on writings, which, unlike the Holy Bible, cannot with surity be considered to have been authored by the Spirit.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Protestants do follow the doctrine of Real Presence in Communion. It is the doctrine of Transubstantiation they do not follow.
As far as I am aware Catholic Answers is a forum for discussing Roman Catholic beliefs NOT attacking Protestant ones, though some seem to think other faiths are fair game.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

REALLY?!
So all those non Catholic Churches I went to really DID believe it was the flesh and bread presence of Christ? Even though they said otherwise? Did they believe but not know they believed?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Protestants do follow the doctrine of Real Presence in Communion. It is the doctrine of Transubstantiation they do not follow.
As far as I am aware Catholic Answers is a forum for discussing Roman Catholic beliefs NOT attacking Protestant ones, though some seem to think other faiths are fair game.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

I genuinely do not understand what you mean by this post. I know there are a lot of misunderstandings of Protestantism by Catholics, and vice versa, but I thought it was generally received knowledge that most protestants do not believe in the Real Presence.

What is it that you mean by the Real Presence? I wonder if it is the same as what a catholic would mean by the Real Presence.

If you believe in the Real Presence but not Transubstantiation (which is, often, very misunderstood), how do you believe the Real Presence comes into being?