Ag_nots Catholic Scriptural Challenge - just ONE proven example wins!!

[tGette]

Not really. Yes, there needs to be 2 (I think) miracles to seal the deal.
But, in reality that is not the basis for why they are chosen to be on the list for beatification(only one miracle needed here?) or for cannonization(gotta have 2). Although, its a requirement, and that opens up another can of worms for me in another way. Rather not get slapped for a derail though.

AND, my problem is not random cannonization- but the opposite. Causes take money and time. And, if either are lacking, or entire generations die out while waiting…

Well…that’s why I said in short.
Being chosen and then it being finalized are definitely entirely different.

 

[Matariel]

Let’s pick a few random doctrines found in Protestantland that Catholics do not believe in: say Calvinism, Pre Tribulational Rapture, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide. I bet you can not prove these as Scripturally false.

Proving something Scripturally false is not the same as dragging out your favorite prooftext du jour and claiming this prooftext does the trick …

If you look at the o-pee again, you’ll see she’s asking for something particularly anti-biblical.

Matariel - 5:53pm - strike one - attempted thread derail

Oops.

A thousand pardons! :bowdown:

 

[notsmart]

If you look at the o-pee again, you’ll see she’s asking for something particularly anti-biblical.

Oops.

A thousand pardons! :bowdown:

As your defense attorney, I will say that you were asked to smell armpits, and everything after that point you said, you can not be held accountable for while visuallizing that request.
I don’t take a retainer, but as your offenses mount- I may ask a small fee per violation to continue to defend you.

 

[Henning]

:compcoff: OK I have ‘one’…don’t know how good the proof is…I’ll see if I can find it in this pile of papers…

 

[Ag_not]

…you were asked to smell armpits, and everything after that point you said, you can not be held accountable for while visuallizing that request.

Ag_not - 6:31pm - Strike One - inflicting inhuman and degrading request on a fellow Christian

 

[With_Questions]

Interesting points you made. Ive heard so many times that the Catholic Church teaches a false Gospel, and that lots of the practices are paganism etc. Youve heard it all before too.

Yup. These are prime examples of going “Over the Top”,

I have criticized many of y’all here in other threads for getting “Over the Top”, so I guess I should let y’all know that you do not have that market cornered.

 

[Henning]

I’ve been thinking about this for a while…it’s kind of focused…anyway, problem:
Mary’s immaculate conception and 2 Cor 5:14 don’t seem to ‘fit’.

2 Cor 5:14
For the love of Christ impels us,
once we have come to the conviction that
one died for all
therefore all have died

1. Jesus is the ‘one’ that died for ‘all’, Jesus died for Mary, therefore the first ‘all’ includes Mary.
2. The second all, ‘all’ have died. Have died/dead in what respect? Either:
   a) have died/dead to sin, or
   b) have died/dead in sin.
   The first option, to sin, wouldn’t make sense seeing there is overwhelming evidence that humanity outside of Christ is much alive to sin (eg, Vegas). So that leaves dead in sin such as found in these three verses:
   Eph 2:1 “You were dead in your transgressions and sins.”
   Eph 2:5 “Even when we were dead in our transgressions…”
   Col 2:13 “And even when you were dead in transgressions …”
3. The two alls. The first all (παντων) and the second all (παντες) are the same, ie they are referring to the same group, especially when:
   a) the two are linked by the ‘therefore’. It would make no sense if they were two different groups so that, “one died for set(A) therefore set(B) has died”. The ‘therefore’ (αρα) wouldn’t be functioning to draw a conclusion.
   b)The second observation is a simple one in that the two 'all’s are in the same verse separated by only one word, ‘therefore’ (αρα οι-). How could it be possible that Paul would all of a sudden shift in mid-verse the second ‘all’ to a different set. So to me the two 'all’s are referring to the same group of people.
4. So, I could rewrite the second half of 5:14 as,
   “one (Jesus) died for all of set(A), therefore all of set(A) was dead in their sins.”
   -or-
   " all of set(A) was dead in their sins to begin with, and then one (Jesus) died for all of set(A)."For me this implies that Mary, of the group that Jesus died for, was also part of that same group which was dead in their sins. Mary was dead in her sins, just like everybody else, before Jesus died for her. But this doesn’t lineup with the CC’s dogma of Mary being immaculately conceived and being sinless.
5. If I start with saying that the CC is correct with its Marian dogma, then I’d have to conclude that
6. the two 'all’s are different sets of people: set(A) = [all humanity + Mary], and then in mid-verse set(B) = [all humanity - Mary]. And that
7. the first ‘all’ doesn’t logically flow to the second with the ‘therefore’, ie the ‘therefore’ wouldn’t be functioning properly.
   Both these two conclusions and the premise that the CC is correct works to give me a bad case of…COGNITIVE DISSONANCE :hypno:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SyCarl,

Let me start off by saying this is a tricky thread … To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the teachings of the Catholic Church that is contrary to the Bible.

In my opinion, however, Scripture is sometimes crystal clear - and other times … well… vague would be an upgrade… But, that is only if one is reading Scripture with the idea that everything is there - AND - everything is complete. The first item is a non-starter … there are numerous omisssions - and this is the way God intended it.

Look at John 21:25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

Christ’s Second Coming has not yet happened - the entire Book of Revelations - is a future event. So, we certainly can not judge these things as of yet.

My problem with Catholic teaching is that, while it might not be against Scripture, some is not well supported by Scripture. To someone who accepts Tradition as a valid basis for doctrine that doesn’t present a problem.

Now, if we are going to take on an issue like Canonized Saints - by looking in Scripture, we are not going to succeed. And, I guess the issue here (and why I think this is tricky…) is that first there was a Church (Catholic) and then there was the New Testament. The completed OT existed before the Incarmation.

If we really believe what Christ said when He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom ((Matt 16:18-19) “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”) then the issue is really settled.

My understanding is that the Chruch was looking for role models that we could follow. Certain individuals demonstrated exceptional piety, devotion, courage, patience, etc. that if we immitated their example we would become closer to Christ. Admittedly, some of the early saints (e.g., during the persecutions by the Roman Emperors) did not have the type of clear histories we would have liked to see - but, you work with what you have, and try to improve as you go on.

What is imporant is that if the Church declares a person to be a Saint, it would be wrong for someone to believe that that particular Saint was no saint at all and that this person is in Hell! We do not have devotions to ever canonized Saint - but, there is nothing to prohibit such a practice.

There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the Chruch from declaring a certain person to be in Heaven. Christ gave the authority to Peter and his successors to run the orgaization as he and his successors saw best - and the guidance of the Holy Spirit would keep the Chruch from error. Declared Saints have a long history in the Catholic Church - and this should indicate that the Holy Spirit has no objection.

So, SyCal, if you have a biblical problem because canonized Saints are not specifically authorized in the Bible, I would say this is legitimate - because it is not there… But, does it have to be? I do not think so. The Bible and the Church work together. The Bible is static in the sense that the Canon is closed. The Chruch is dynamic in the sense that it is the living Bride of Christ. How the Church and Bible cooperate is all part of God’s Plan for our Salvation. And, truly, that is the Good News

God bless

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well, in theory.
It depends on what CONTENT you put into those words. Because yes, Mary WAS blessed, because she was the vessel by which Our Lord entered this world. She was a great instrument of God. No more, no less. But that doesn’t mean that she should be put on the piedestal she has been.

How about this?

Rev 12

5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne…

17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

 

[notsmart]

How about this?

Rev 12

5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne…

17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

My non catholic friend says this refers to Sara.

 

[Cinette]

Faith evokes love, charity, dedication, trust, mercy, loyalty, belief, devotion, dedication, commitment but above all it evokes God in our lives. It is all that is good – we need to live out the Works of Mercy . This is based on Matthew 25:31and in line with Jesus’ teaching.

The Spiritual Works of Mercy are:

• to admonish the sinner,
• to instruct the ignorant,
• to counsel the doubtful,
• to comfort the sorrowful,
• to bear wrongs patiently,
• to forgive all injuries and to pray for the living and the dead.

The Corporal Works of Mercy are:

• to feed the hungry,
• to give drink to the thirsty,
• to clothe the naked,
• to ransom the captive,
• to harbour the harbourless,
• to visit the sick and to bury the dead.

Community is vital to a faith-filled life as we are to love and support one another. Through two thousand years of our Christian Faith, the Church has, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced well defined guidelines for our benefit. The Sacraments, from which we receive grace, are important for our faith formation and practice. The Scriptures are a prime resource to guide and instruct us.

When we go to Confession we should examine our consciences - perhaps by checking out the 10 Commandments, the Beatitudes, etc. I don’t go to Confession often enough 3-4 times a years is too little. I am going to change this because I believe that at least once a month would be a good beginning.

I believe that Confession helps to prevent us sinning because when you about to do so we remember we are going to have to confess this sin and we often avoid the sin. So it is a good prevention.

I hope I am not off topic but I have discussed Confession with non-Catholics and they seem to think that this is just an invention of the CC. They even went so far as to say that when Jesus gave the Apostles instructions “Whatever you forgive on earth will be forgiven in Heaven…” was given only for the lifespan of the Apostles.

So I am posting this because I believe it is a summary of how we should live our Christian faith (according to Matt 25) and I am sure other more knowledgeable people will be able to add to this.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

My non catholic friend says this refers to Sara.

That’s a new one on me!

They have to think of something, I guess.

 

[Callin]

Uh … what happens when you ask this question on a non-Catholic board?

“Catholics worship statues.”

:manvspc:

^ One of those two.

 

[notsmart]

That’s a new one on me!

They have to think of something, I guess.

She is her spiritual mother so she feels it must be sara this is in reference to!
I said, so um, you really see sara in that verse? I see Mary.
She accused me of being a catholic, and that was over five years ago as a raving atheist.

 

[Matariel]

I’ve been thinking about this for a while…it’s kind of focused…anyway, problem:
Mary’s immaculate conception and 2 Cor 5:14 don’t seem to ‘fit’.

2 Cor 5:14
For the love of Christ impels us,
once we have come to the conviction that
one died for all
therefore all have died

1. Jesus is the ‘one’ that died for ‘all’, Jesus died for Mary, therefore the first ‘all’ includes Mary.

I don’t see what the problem is. Catholicism acknowledges that Blessed Mary needed a Redeemer…

 

[Ag_not]

They have to think of something, I guess.

:bluelite: Im considering a citation for your phraseology

Careful … you dont want to experience my :nunchuk:

 

[Cinette]

Just before I go off to take a shower (its early morning here) I must just say one thing more.

For Protestants to understand the Church Teachings on Mary I appreciate that this may take some time. It is such a foreign concept to you.

Also, we may be people who ask a zillion number of questions or disect each response etc etc etc. but here is something I have learned:

*" Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." *

• St Augustine

For some, understanding and loving Mary comes naturally, for others, it is a different matter altogether.

I am praying of all of us on these forums. Love you!

Cheers
Cinette

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

:bluelite: Im considering a citation for your phraseology

Careful … you dont want to experience my :nunchuk:

I’m glad I didn’t say “separated brethren”!

 

[benedictus2]

I believe that the piedestal Mary is put on in the RC church (and eastern church, for that matter) is unbiblical. In my view, the NT does not attribute to Mary the kind of importance that the RC church does. Yes, she’s always spoken of respectfully, but I cannot, even if I try, see what RCs seem to see.

Let’s take Luk 11:27-28 for instance.
It says (quoting from KJV):
“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”

…

…

Now, let’s look at possible translations:
Either
“…but He said: Indeed…”
or
“…but He said: On the contrary!”/"…but He said: Rather!"

I would say that no 2 makes more sense. It simply doesn’t make sense to me, to use an adversative particle in the beginning of a reply (“but”), and then continue to agree with the speaker. That suggests to me that no 2 is the case here, and if that is so, then Jesus is saying that His mother is not “special” (and please don’t misunderstand me here, as I have underlined what I think of Mary earlier!), but that what’s important is to hear the word of God, and “keep it”

I agree with the second “rather.” But it is not quite the way you understand it.

When the woman said blessed is the womb that bore you, here she was exulting Mary for having conceived Jesus.

But Jesus is saying No, no, no. You got it all wrong. It is not because of her conceiving Me that she is blessed. Rather it is because she did the will of the Father. In another passage, recall Christ saying it is not those who call him Lord, Lord who will enter the kingdom but rather those who DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER.

Of all of humanity, Mary gave the most perfect yes, to God’s will. When adultery is punishable by stoning, she said yes to conceiving a Son out of wedlock. When she did not know how this will come about, her one response was “Be it done to me according to thy word”.

That is why she is called the new Eve. Eve’s No to God which brought about our fall is firmly and decidedly countered by Mary’s Yes which will bring about the birth of Christ and our salvation.

In the very same way, we cannot give birth to Christ in our lives without total submission to the will of the Father.

That is why Christ said Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. Of all of creation, she heard and kept the Word of God most perfectly which thereby allowed the incarnation of the Word of God.

Notice her reply at the annunciation. When she said “How can this come about when I know no man.”

That would be a rather stupid question since she is already betrothed to Joseph so if the normal course of even she would be expected to conceive after having marital relations with her husband. Unless of course she has consecrated herself to the Lord and has made a vow that she will never at any time, know any man.

Also, at the foot of the Cross, Jesus entrusts her to John. Now it is customary for Jews to look after their parents (it is the fourth commandment). If Christ had any sibblings, they by right should have been the one to look after their Mother. The only reason He would have entrust Mary to the disciple He loved is because there were no other sibblings.

Whilst dying on the cross, when breathing alone was excruciatingly painful He takes the time and effort through all that pain to utter :Mother behold thy son, son behold thy Mother.

 

[Henning]

I don’t see what the problem is. Catholicism acknowledges that Blessed Mary needed a Redeemer…

oh no, that’s not the problem …that’s one of the premises which is true…I guess just keep reading down the post…#4 & #5 are conclusions