All have sinned.. including Mary.

[Gabriel_of_12]

That is not exactly true. Though there were some Fathers who seem to believe in the Immaculate Conception, there are many who clearly did not. You are correct in stating that many emphasized (or tried to work out) how Mary needed a savior. Some like St. John Chrysostom believed she had committed venial sins, such as when Jesus seems to criticize Mary. This did not prevent them from being canonized, though, because it was not defined. They were free to hold to many different theories of Mary’s sinlessness, yet apparent need of a savior.

The Virgin Mary, was saved by Jesus before her conception, and remained sinless until her death. This is the result of all the teachings from the Early church fathers, saints, and martyrs. This is now a defined doctrine of the blessed Mother. Immaculate conceptioin, and perpetual Virgin, Mother of God, Assumed into Heaven, where nothing unclean can come before God.

To debate the Catholic Fathers writings and thoughts about this belief from the apostles gets revealed from the Oral Traditions and indoctrinated into the Catholic church, Is here nor there. To base a truth on a thought of a theologian only makes it an opinion until it gets defined and made a doctrine in order for all opinions to cease and become teachings.

The writings you find that are border line heresy, or writings that may indicate something different from the doctrine. Cease to be, when The Immaculate conception of Mary and her sinless life is made clear by the Catholic church.

As far as Mary needing a savior the Catholic church teaches she did. And that her salvation was predestined before her conception, according to Genesis 3:15. Also in her life, the dragon pursued Mary, but could not taint her with sin or kill her, because God gave her two wings of the great eagle, far from the serpent, that the serpent, because God divinely protected the blessed Mother, and could not touch her, the serpent became angry with blessed Mother and left her to wage war against her offspring, who are those who keep Gods commandments and bear witness to Jesus. Revelations 12:13-17

Any writings from the early Church fathers only helps to reveal what is the true teaching and what is not about the Virgin Mary.

The little short John Chrysostom was the one who appealed to Pope innocent I against the bishops who had condemned him, to which the Pope protected him vigorously. John Chrysostom Held to the teachings of the orthodoxy of the Church, and remained loyal to the Pope. So his writings or thoughts did not affect the doctrine, only to prove, that Mary did not have any sin, venial or mortal in the conclusion.

I believe that now this doctrine cannot be contested among beleivers. That quoting the early Church Fathers will be repeating what the conclusion or result we have today, that they taught, believed as what was handed down to them that Mary immaculate conceived without original sin, and lived without sin.

Now as far as Jesus criticising Mary, I have never heard of such a thing in all my life. Unless you are misinterpreting the Hebrew idiums between Jesus and Mary. If you read these like a late protestant view, you are not reading the scripture correctly, and end up with a 20th century view that Jesus was bashing his Mother. I hope you can explain what you mean by Jesus criticizing his Mother. I thought Jesus obeyed the commandment to honor your father and mother. And he did, according to sacred scripture.

 

[Syele]

**Let me as you **and Syele a question:
What makes sin a sin - the action or the intent behind the action?

Actions make sins. Gods Judgment of us and weather we are culpable for that sin is based on intent and/or repentance.

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20)

IOW knowing the law makes you conscious of what you are doing that is sin. It wouldn’t make something a sin that wasn’t sin before you knew about it.

If I do not know/understand something is sinful be it due to age or insanity or maybe cause I was lied to(told it was not a sin), I am then not culpable for it because God is merciful, NOT because God is somehow perfectly fine with the sin I committed. When later I learn that is was in fact a sin, I should still repent of it because God HATES the actions He deems sin. “Again and again I sent my servants the prophets, who said, ‘Do not do this detestable thing that I hate!’” (Jeremiah 44:4).When a toddler acts defiantly towards parents they are doing an ACTION that is SIN. “Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right.” Just because it is sin does NOT mean they are culpable for it.(1 John 5:17) God let the children who did not understand still enter the promised land, Why would He change for Heaven? (Deuteronomy 1:39)

If sin is based ONLY on intent,well, haven’t you heard? The road to hell is paved with good intentions!

 

[mozart-250]

I agree. That’s why everyone needs an interpretative grid (Sacred Tradition) to discern the true meaning of the Scriptures. We need to also look to the early Church Fathers. After all, they were closest to the Apostles in time, and some even knew the Apostles.

I agree (sort of). The problem I see with tradition is distinguishing tradition that originates from the apostles from everything else. Since there is a measurable gap between the time of the apostles, and since some ECF disagreed with the immaculate conception, the evidence to me suggests that the immaculate conception belongs in everything else.

Unfortunatley, I find people today approaching God’s Holy Book with preconceived notions about such and such. The result? Tens of thousands of different denominations claiming that it has solely and successfully interpreted the Scriptures. It is not possible.

I agree (sort of), although if we want to exaggerate I could just as easily call it 7,234,612 denominations.

Yes, I agree. Verses 30-33 does explain Lk 1:28, but it doesn’t explain Mary’s troubled reaction to the angel’s salutation in verse 29. Why was Mary so troubled by the greeting in Lk 1:29? Her reaction occurs before the angel explains the reason for his visitation, not after it. She obviously was shocked by the way she was addressed.

It could be she was troubled just by having an angel greet her and speaking to her. I imagine that angels speaking to 13 year old girls is not common.

And notice the angel didn’t address her Hail, Mary the Lord is with you!" but Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" Where else in the Bible can you find such a reaction to such a greeting by God’s angels?

Just a comment here from reading this thread.

Because Scripture at the same time never authorizes any other source as its equal. Otherwise you can get me to believe in the Book of Mormon.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Singinbeauty]

I have to go to work but I wanted to stop and say this:

For me, it would mean more that God chose a simple and humble sinful woman (not evil but just like me) to come into this world. It would mean that God could choose any of us to do wonderful things just as we see throughout the bible.

So you see, at least with me, it is not a matter of attacking her but really wanting to see the awesome things that God can do with someone who is imperfect…

 

[unixfudotnet]

Awesome thing about Catholicism is that you don’t have to worry about all this. Blindly following what the Church says as truth has it’s advantages.

Discussion and arguments are natural for non-Catholics, as they’re missing the other half (Spoken Word) and amateur Scripture analysis.

I feel for them, as it’s like they’re trying to fix a time machine and have no idea what a flux capacitor is.

It can be discussed till the end of time, yet it won’t matter.

 

[elvisman]

Actions make sins. Gods Judgment of us and weather we are culpable for that sin is based on intent and/or repentance.

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20)

IOW knowing the law makes you conscious of what you are doing that is sin. It wouldn’t make something a sin that wasn’t sin before you knew about it.

If I do not know/understand something is sinful be it due to age or insanity or maybe cause I was lied to(told it was not a sin), I am then not culpable for it because God is merciful, NOT because God is somehow perfectly fine with the sin I committed. When later I learn that is was in fact a sin, I should still repent of it because God HATES the actions He deems sin. “Again and again I sent my servants the prophets, who said, ‘Do not do this detestable thing that I hate!’” (Jeremiah 44:4).When a toddler acts defiantly towards parents they are doing an ACTION that is SIN. “Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right.” Just because it is sin does NOT mean they are culpable for it.(1 John 5:17) God let the children who did not understand still enter the promised land, Why would He change for Heaven? (Deuteronomy 1:39)

If sin is based ONLY on intent,well, haven’t you heard? The road to hell is paved with good intentions!

Sorry - but action without intent is not a sin.
I can go target shooting and accidentally kill someone. That’s not a sin. If I did it purposely, THAT is sinful.

I’ve already pointed out what Jesus himself had to say about intent, but I’ll say it again, in case you missed it the first time:
"But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." **(Matt. 5:**28)

Again, if infants and toddlers are capable of sin, that would NECESSITATE repentance - as a baby.
**A baby is not of the age of reason and, therefore, CANNOT **sin.

PS - When St. Paul speaks of the law in Romans, he is speaking of the Mosaic Law, so your point there is moot.

 

[guanophore]

The ‘attack’ on Mary’s maternity as Mother of the Church and her role in salvation history stems directly to a loss in the sacredness of motherhood, the holiness of the family, and the spiritual meaning of motherhood. The attacks have become more vehement in direct proportion for those protestant denominations (and non-deminations) which have accepted divorce, feminism, birth control, abortion, and a general hatred of children(statistics on abuse bears out this last remark). The “rule of thumb” for those who have such hatred for the mother of Jesus, for the most part and in my own inquiry, is that they are divorced (sometimes more than two or three times), they practice or have practiced artificial contraception, some have had abortions, and they have failed in child-rearing. They hide behind this hatred of the mother of Christ because they can’t face themselves and have severe parent issues themselves. It’s projection of their own inner psyches under the guise of being ‘saved’ when, in fact, they are the most loss of any souls.

:bowdown: :bowdown:

This is so true, and I have only come to understand this since joining CAF. The thoughts of many hearts may be revealed, and God chose that these should be revealed through the ministry He gave to Mary.

 

[guanophore]

And notice the angel didn’t address her Hail, Mary the Lord is with you!" but Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" Where else in the Bible can you find such a reaction to such a greeting by God’s angels?

Just a comment here from reading this thread.

I think the logic used here is “full of grace”=“no room for sin”=“was delivered from original sin at the point of conception” and “never sinned in her entire lifetime”. Correct?

My issues:

“full of grace”=“no room for sin” seems creative. My issue would be that using the same formula one could substitute any good and desirable thing on the right hand of the equation (no room for sickness, no capacity for being poor, no sorrows in life).

Do you not think that this is God’s intention for all of us? Does this not reflect the life He created in the Garden of Eden?

But even if this is true it does not necessarily follow that "no room for sin"="never sinned in her entire lifetime" and "was delivered from original sin at the point of conception".  I can come up with alternatives that are equally credible and do not seem to violate other scriptures like Romans 3:23.

I agree. A person who is baptized is cleansed, but then has to choose to continue in grace. The difference is that Mary was created like Eve, without any concupiscence (sin nature). When the tendency to sin is absent, I would expect that it is much easier to resist temptation. Still work, but the battle with the sin nature is the biggest work.

Because Scripture at the same time never authorizes any other source as its equal. Otherwise you can get me to believe in the Book of Mormon.

You don’t think that Scripture authorizes the preached word of the Apostles as equal to the writings?

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thess 2:13-14

What do you make of Jesus talking about righteous people, and references to righteous people in scripture? What makes you think “all” means "all"in Rom. 3:23 when it does not mean “all” in other passages?

 

[justasking4]

I think we’re all still trying to figure that out.

Let’s assume for just a moment however that you’re absolutely right in everything you have said here. All those who have discussed with you are wrong and you’re right.

How does that make you feel? What have you gained here? Do you feel your relationship with God is the better for it? What do you think God thinks? You’re welcome to back your answers with Scripture,

I don’t know how well you know the scriptures but one thing is clear about Jesus and His apostles and that is the truth matters. False teachings mislead people and cause them to depend on things that God never intended and practice things they should not do. Let me give you a couple of examples from Scripture.
Colossians 2:8 is foundational principle:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Further on in this chapter he writes this warning:
18 **Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize **by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

And here is another from 2 Cornithians 11:2-4
2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

As you can see the truth matters in what you believe and practice.

 

[KJK80]

As you can see the truth matters in what you believe and practice.

OK then, so I have a few more questions…

A) How do you know you have the truth and other’s do not? What is truth? Many protestant church’s have a different understanding of the truth using the same Bible.

B) Are you given the authority from scripture to debate those church’s you do not agree with, on matters of faith?

C) How does what the Catholic church holds as matters of faith affect what you believe and practice, exactly?

D) Is it a practice of the Catholic church to promote proselytizing to those of non-Catholic Christian faith’s?

E) Again, I ask, how does any of this make your walk with God closer? That is, even if you were to prove the entire Catholic faith is wrong, what would this profit you?

Thank-you!

 

[guanophore]

I think we’re all still trying to figure that out.

Let’s assume for just a moment however that you’re absolutely right in everything you have said here. All those who have discussed with you are wrong and you’re right.

How does that make you feel? What have you gained here? Do you feel your relationship with God is the better for it? What do you think God thinks? You’re welcome to back your answers with Scripture,

I don’t know how well you know the scriptures but one thing is clear about Jesus and His apostles and that is the truth matters. False teachings mislead people and cause them to depend on things that God never intended and practice things they should not do. Let me give you a couple of examples from Scripture.
Colossians 2:8 is foundational principle:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Further on in this chapter he writes this warning:
18 **Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize **by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

And here is another from 2 Cornithians 11:2-4
2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

As you can see the truth matters in what you believe and practice.

You did not answer the question, ja4.,

How does that make you feel? What have you gained here? Do you feel your relationship with God is the better for it? What do you think God thinks? You’re welcome to back your answers with Scripture,

You have determined for yourself that the Teachings of the Catholic Church are false, and that they are empty deceptions (speculations of men). But you did not gain that knowledge here. In fact, you believed that already when you came here. Do you mean to imply that your goal here is to make Catholics awared that they have been deceived by the Church? Would that fill your heart with joy?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have to go to work but I wanted to stop and say this:

For me, it would mean more that God chose a simple and humble sinful woman (not evil but just like me) to come into this world. It would mean that God could choose any of us to do wonderful things just as we see throughout the bible.

So you see, at least with me, it is not a matter of attacking her but really wanting to see the awesome things that God can do with someone who is imperfect…

For me, it would mean more of a miracle for God to save a soul before conception, and to prepare a body for himself to be born without sin, this exceeds the miracle of God saving a sinner, than God saving one before entering into sin. This is nothing new in God’s work, for he created the first Adam and Eve without sin. Not to mention John the Baptist. Why would any one want to deny the power of God saving someone before they sin, to live a sinless life, in order to be conceived by the Holy Ark (Virgin Mary) that carried the Word made flesh.

God saving Mary from original sin, displays his awesome power according to his will. Mary did something that does not compare to any of the Law givers, and prophets, these possesed the Word of God, Mary held the Word of God, and gave birth to the Word of God. How awesome is that display of God’s power. Somethings that God chose to do suspends the logic of the flesh and natural understanding, example the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.

 

[justasking4]

KJK80;3493987]
Originally Posted by justasking4
As you can see the truth matters in what you believe and practice.

OK then, so I have a few more questions…

A) How do you know you have the truth and other’s do not?

A person can compare what the catholic church teaches in its doctrines and compare that with what the scriptures say. For example take praying Mary. Where do we see in Scripture any prayers to Mary? Is there any exhortation from Jesus or His apostles to do so? The answers are no. This is not an apostolic teaching but a doctrine and tradition of men.

What is truth?

Truth is what corresponds to reality. Something is true if it corresponds to reality. It is true that Christ died on the cross if He indeed did. It would be false to claim that He did if in fact He did not.

Many protestant church’s have a different understanding of the truth using the same Bible

.
This is not suprising. This happens in all areas of knowledge. The same is true about catholics and church doctrines. Not all catholics believe that same things about these matters.

B) Are you given the authority from scripture to debate those church’s you do not agree with, on matters of faith?

Yes.

C) How does what the Catholic church holds as matters of faith affect what you believe and practice, exactly?

For me personally not much. It does trouble me deeply what catholics and those who claim to follow Christ are not discerning what the catholic church teaches them.

D) Is it a practice of the Catholic church to promote proselytizing to those of non-Catholic Christian faith’s?

I think so. What do you think?

E) Again, I ask, how does any of this make your walk with God closer? That is, even if you were to prove the entire Catholic faith is wrong, what would this profit you?

Its not about my walk in Christ being closer but about my being obedient to follow Christ and engage those for the truth of Christ. Read the letters of Paul for example. He was admant about the churches he founded believe the truth and reject false teachings. He labored consistently over this point. How can i be any different?

Thank-you!

 

[Lampo]

Quote:
B) Are you given the authority from scripture to debate those church’s you do not agree with, on matters of faith?

Could you please provide the chapter and verse that gives you such authority?

 

[pismopal]

I have to go to work but I wanted to stop and say this:

For me, it would mean more that God chose a simple and humble sinful woman (not evil but just like me) to come into this world. It would mean that God could choose any of us to do wonderful things just as we see throughout the bible.

So you see, at least with me, it is not a matter of attacking her but really wanting to see the awesome things that God can do with someone who is imperfect…

Well you acknowledge that G-d can do wonderful things with Mary but He just can’t have made her sinless.
My question is…why is it so important for some to believe that Mary was not without sin. Relegating Mary to a lesser status has always been an important duty of non Catholics but I would be careful how you speak of His Mother.

 

[Good_Fella]

I agree (sort of). The problem I see with tradition is distinguishing tradition that originates from the apostles from everything else. Since there is a measurable gap between the time of the apostles, and since some ECF disagreed with the immaculate conception, the evidence to me suggests that the immaculate conception belongs in everything else.

Would you care to quote the early Church Fathers who “disagreed” with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Perhaps you should be made aware that there was no “explicit” and developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the early centuries of the Catholic Church. Rather, the doctrine was “implicitly” and consistently taught by the ECFs: They believed that the Virgin Mary was “full of grace” and thus sinless. Juniper Carol points out “the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a classic example of the development of doctrine” over a length of time ‘Mariology’, Vol l, p.18]. Theologians distinguish three stages in the development in the progressive awareness of a revealed truth over a period of time. In the words of Juniper Carol: The first stage is “implicit acceptance”; the second stage is “the period of discussion and controversy”; the third stage is “the doctrine is received by the entire Church” or “finally even solemnly defined”. Carol points out that the Marian dogmas followed this path just as the canon of Scripture and the dogma of the Holy Trinity did. Now St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, only Mary’s sinlessness, (Stage 2), but he was mistaken in his fallible capacity as an individual Catholic theologian. (He did say that he would accept this Marian doctrine if it happened to be declared dogma by the Magisterium of the Church.) If any ECF refused to accept the implicit teachings on the Immaculate Conception (Stage 1), he was just as mistaken as any fallible individual could be, including John Wesley, although the Protestant reformer was at a greater disadvantage, having separated himself from the historic Christian faith; so much more farther from the NT apostles. :yup: There is no “gap” with Apostolic succession. :nope:

Concerning the Immaculate Conception, the first stage is “the tranquil acceptance of the unique graces and privileges of Mary…The early Christians accepted Mary’s singular position as Mother of God, as ever-virgin, as all holy, as the New Eve (free of concupiscence, my emphasis). Thereby they implicitly accepted the Immaculate Conception, which is implied by the divine motherhood” 'Mariology, Vol l, pp 17ff, 344ff]. In the third century, Origen described Mary as “the immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one”. The third stage of development was capped by the issuance of the Apostolic Constitution, ‘Ineffabilis Deus’, of Pope Pius lX, on 8 December 1854. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception was already established long before by Pope Sixtus lV on 8 December 1476. By this time it could be argued the doctrine had been received by the entire Church but not yet declared dogma to which Catholics should be bound to give their “sacred” assent as opposed to only a “religious” assent. Pious dissent (as in the case of Aquinas in Mediaeval time) was still acceptable. Catholics were not yet bound to accept this doctrine under the weight of anathematization. Thus there was still room for discussion and a little controversy.

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
{ 2 Peter 3, 8}

“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are ‘coming’.”
{John 16, 13}

The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”. {1 Timothy 3, 15}

“One body, one Spirit, one faith, one God!”
{Ephesians 2, 1-6}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[KJK80]

A person can compare what the catholic church teaches in its doctrines and compare that with what the scriptures say. For example take praying Mary. Where do we see in Scripture any prayers to Mary? Is there any exhortation from Jesus or His apostles to do so? The answers are no. This is not an apostolic teaching but a doctrine and tradition of men.

Does it conflict with scripture? If so, who’s interpretation? Is their interpretation open to error? There’s plenty of practices out there that are not explicitly outlined Scripturally. Where in Scripture is there any exhortation from Jesus or His apostles to no longer keep the Sabbath holy and to worship on Sunday? Is it implied in your mind that is it is correct to do so? Is this a universal belief by Protestant’s?

Truth is what corresponds to reality. Something is true if it corresponds to reality. It is true that Christ died on the cross if He indeed did. It would be false to claim that He did if in fact He did not.

So it is a universal belief that Christ died on a cross?

This is not suprising. This happens in all areas of knowledge. The same is true about catholics and church doctrines. Not all catholics believe that same things about these matters.

People not being knowledgeable of their faith and church doctrine are two very different things, don’t confuse that. If you look at the fundamental beliefs of various Protestant faiths, you will find some very different things that do not align by the literal interpretation of Scripture.

For me personally not much. It does trouble me deeply what catholics and those who claim to follow Christ are not discerning what the catholic church teaches them.

Who is not discerning what the Catholic church teaches? How did you discern what you believe?

I think so. What do you think?

I didn’t ask what you think, I asked if it was a practice backed by the church… Can you point me to an official document somewhere?

Its not about my walk in Christ being closer but about my being obedient to follow Christ and engage those for the truth of Christ. Read the letters of Paul for example. He was admant about the churches he founded believe the truth and reject false teachings. He labored consistently over this point. How can i be any different?

Let’s look at the words you used… “CHURCHES HE FOUNDED”

He was directly responsible for the beliefs of the church’s he was involved in. As in the Catholic church, the Pope is responsible for the beliefs of the church’s which are in union with him. However, the Pope is not responsible for the beliefs of the Baptist church (just for an example). Nor is the conference president of the Seventh-day Adventist church (just for another example) responsible for the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church (for an example).

The SDA’s conference president is responsible for the SDA church.

The pope is responsible for the Roman Catholic Church (amongst others).

All of these people are men, but in the case of the Roman Catholic church, under Catholic faith, no pope has caused the church to error on matters of doctrine.

It is NOT your responsibility to point out your conceived errors of the Catholic church. It IS my duty to defend Jesus Christ. It is NOT my duty to point out the errors of other’s faith (though I am guilty of the attempt to do so, and I am working on that, actively).

Regardless, I cannot find any scriptural support for you to have the authority to attempt to prove Catholicism false or to have false doctrines to Catholic’s. Though your right to free speech does allow this, it is not something that is supported, scripturally.

 

[NDfan]

For me, it would mean more of a miracle for God to save a soul before conception, and to prepare a body for himself to be born without sin, this exceeds the miracle of God saving a sinner, than God saving one before entering into sin. This is nothing new in God’s work, for he created the first Adam and Eve without sin. Not to mention John the Baptist. Why would any one want to deny the power of God saving someone before they sin, to live a sinless life, in order to be conceived by the Holy Ark (Virgin Mary) that carried the Word made flesh.

God saving Mary from original sin, displays his awesome power according to his will. Mary did something that does not compare to any of the Law givers, and prophets, these possesed the Word of God, Mary held the Word of God, and gave birth to the Word of God. How awesome is that display of God’s power. Somethings that God chose to do suspends the logic of the flesh and natural understanding, example the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.

Gabriel I wouldn’t disagree with you. Any miracle GOD performs is incredible. My son has just been healed of a brain tumor. It didn’t matter how GOD did it but just the fact that he healed him was miraculous.

The only question I would like to ask you is why does Mary have to be sinless?

PEACE

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel I wouldn’t disagree with you. Any miracle GOD performs is incredible. My son has just been healed of a brain tumor. It didn’t matter how GOD did it but just the fact that he healed him was miraculous.

The only question I would like to ask you is why does Mary have to be sinless?

PEACE

Praise God for your sons healing. God is so wonderful to his children.

Mary has to be sinless because God made the prophecy that she would be from the fall of our first parents. If Mary could be proven to have sinned, the incarnation of Jesus, will become tainted as sinner. For one when God created with his word, that every seed bearing shall produce from it the same seed. A woman has no seed, the man carries the seed. Mary being a virgin explains the seed, secondly when the first Eve fell, sin entered and woman is cursed with birth pains as a result with original sin. Mary had no birth pains, thus the sin of our first parents, Mary was without original sin.

 

[justasking4]

KJK80;3494158]
Originally Posted by justasking4
A person can compare what the catholic church teaches in its doctrines and compare that with what the scriptures say. For example take praying Mary. Where do we see in Scripture any prayers to Mary? Is there any exhortation from Jesus or His apostles to do so? The answers are no. This is not an apostolic teaching but a doctrine and tradition of men.

KJK80
Does it conflict with scripture?

Yes. There is only one High Priest Who intercedes for us and that is the Lord Jesus. To say the Mary and those who have died intercede for us is to make them something that they are not i.e. high priests who intercede for us.

If so, who’s interpretation? Is their interpretation open to error?

How do you go about in life to determine which interpretation of something is correct or not? We do this by looking at the facts that support the interpretation and are they being used correctly. We can look at the meanings of words and the context which helps us greatly to determine if they are being used correctly.

There’s plenty of practices out there that are not explicitly outlined Scripturally. Where in Scripture is there any exhortation from Jesus or His apostles to no longer keep the Sabbath holy and to worship on Sunday?

We know that Jesus fulfilled all the OT laws and regulations. Keeping the Sabbath was never mandated by the church in Acts or the NT letters. In fact Paul in Colossians 2:16-17 calls the sabbath a mere shadow of what is to come. The meeting on Sundays was something the church did because that was the day Christ rose.

Is it implied in your mind that is it is correct to do so? Is this a universal belief by Protestant’s?

This is correct and all protestants i know of would accept this.

Quote:justasking4
Truth is what corresponds to reality. Something is true if it corresponds to reality. It is true that Christ died on the cross if He indeed did. It would be false to claim that He did if in fact He did not.

KJK80
So it is a universal belief that Christ died on a cross?

It would be in the church. Musliums believe He did not die. However for them to claim this is not from the NT but from their own theology.

Quote:justasking4
This is not suprising. This happens in all areas of knowledge. The same is true about catholics and church doctrines. Not all catholics believe that same things about these matters.

KJK80
People not being knowledgeable of their faith and church doctrine are two very different things, don’t confuse that.

I’m not referring to people who don’t have knowledge but those that do. I know a few knowledgeable catholics who have different views on doctrines. You can see it even on these forums.

If you look at the fundamental beliefs of various Protestant faiths, you will find some very different things that do not align by the literal interpretation of Scripture.

I agree. However on the essentials there are agreements. Things such as Christ is God, died for our sins and rose again would be some essentials that are agreed uopn.

Quote:justasking4
For me personally not much. It does trouble me deeply what catholics and those who claim to follow Christ are not discerning what the catholic church teaches them.

KJK80
Who is not discerning what the Catholic church teaches?

There are many catholics out here and in my life who are not discerning deeply about the marian doctrines for example and the implications of them.

How did you discern what you believe?

First is to know the Scriptures well then compare that with what others teach.

Quote:justasking4
I think so. What do you think?
KJK80
I didn’t ask what you think, I asked if it was a practice backed by the church… Can you point me to an official document somewhere?

Can you rephrase your question?