L
Lapell
Guest
Frankly, you seem unable to accept implicit possibilities in Biblical interpretation! There are many layers in interpreting a passage, you know! Not all of them are obvious at once…
- Status
L
Lapell
Guest
And anyway, I was sharing that this passage about the new wine needing to be put in new wineskins helped me accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. You don’t need to have exactly experienced the same thing yourself… Oh well! 
E
estesbob
Guest
We can start right here. Based on your interpreation of Scripture the Immaculate Conception is not true. Yet we see multitudes of people who disagree with you-many quoting Scripture. Different interpretations based on ones reading of Scripture yet everyone claims to led by the Spririt. How do we resolve that?
L
LutheranDK
Guest
I do not see how the question of the immaculate conception has anything to do with the Trinity of the Godhead?
Secondly, I have yet to see biblical arguments for the “immaculate conception”. We get absolutely NO information of that nature about Mary.
Thirdly, to answer your question on how we resolve the issues:
THE SCRIPTURES.
Yes, all claim to be in a accordance with Scripture, but not all are. I think that is why Luther made a point of getting the study of the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) into theological education. Without the ability to read what the original text actually says, we cannot hope to grasp the depths of Scripture.
M
MrS
Guest
keep the door open…Now that we’re on the subject - how charitable is it to bait people?
I suspected that you would only open the door for the discussion if I “knocked on it” so to speak. And you did.
Not much of what happens in the Roman church seems to be Christ-centrered. Yes, Peter-centered, (based on the authority given him by Christ) Mary-centrered, (based on her role as mother of God) saints-centrered, (based on their role of witness to the Truth) yes. But not Christ-centrered. Christ seems to have been lost in scholastic philosophy…
I use the term “Roman” instead of “Catholic”, not because of malice or bitterness, but because I do not accept the Roman church’s (there is no Roman Church - and there was none when Henry coined that term and “papist”) claim of being identical to the Catholic church. The meaning of the word “katholikos” is “universal” → emcompassing ALL believers, (meaning the door is open to all who will believe - and the Gospel message is for all, but not under their terms, their interpretations, there level of acceptance) not only those from any one denomination. (You are a member of the Body of Christ by virtue of a Trinitarion Baptism, but that does not equate with you accepting less than the fullness of the Faith found only in the Catholic Church. To do that lessens the graces available to you, and makes you what is termed a separated brethren…not a non-Roman Catholic)
That I am in opposition to the Roman church, there can be no doubt about. I have not said anything else, nor have we been taught anything else.
That post of yours might have scored high on the CA “apologetics” scale - but methinks this is mostly based on the repetition of “accepted” truths within the Roman church.
There is NO reasoning whatsoever - just plain statements.
And that is what I have found that Roman apologetics are mostly about: Repetition of statements without reasoning…and when there IS reasoning - it is circular more often than not. (I doubt you are very familiar with Catholic Apologetics which should always be Christ centered, but that will come in time. A Catholic Apologist need only present the “reasonableness” of the Catholic position…not try to win you over or convert you. Often you will deny the “reasonableness” of the Truth of the Church. That is okay…all comes in God’s time.)
But one question I have not yet recieved a good answer to:
Since y’all seem to think that Matt 16:18 is to be understood literally, what do you make of Matt 16:23? Is that also to be understood literally? Or is it somehow different all of a sudden?
(No different than if I said to you or a JW or a Muslim who was presenting truth as he’you know it which contradicts the will of God…get thee behind me)
And even IF (and mind you: I am not conceeding that it is the case!) Matt 16:18 WAS meant literally, and that the person of Peter WAS the rock on which the true church should be build, the idea of the papacy does not follow. (there are plenty of threads here for you to browse without derailing this one. Use the SEARCH pulldown and enjoy long discussions with both viewpoints and lots of evidence. Beware, it may keep you awake at night…)
If you can give good, biblical reasons for your views, then please go ahead. If not, I think we should let this matter end here (except that I WOULD like an answer to the above question in any case…)
N
NDfan
Guest
Well I had a great exchange with Elvisman on this yesterday which had me reviewing notes last night.
The premise that we see with regard to Mary’s sinless nature is that it was necessary so Jesus would not be tainted in the womb. I’ve always contended that this was impossible because Jesus was GOD incarnate. GOD cannot be tainted with sin at all. The world would cease to exist if that happened.
To support my belief I go to a couple of places in scripture. In Matthew we see Jesus healing a leper. Now if you refer to Numbers you will see that touching a leper meant you would be defiled. That’s why lepers could not be around and usually were outcasts. Yet Jesus chooses to heal the leper by touching him. Did Jesus become defiled after touching the leper? No HE didn’t. The leper was healed and was in fact told by Jesus to go to the Temple so the Priests could do their typical skin inspection to confirm his healing.
The same thing is noticed for the woman who bled, the demon possessed man etc. Jesus healed by HIS simple touch. Now given that sin is the cause of sickness it’s easy to see that Jesus has all power over sin. Jesus forgave people of their sin in some cases verbally which enabled them to be healed. Based on this it’s impossible then to think that Jesus could ever be tainted with sin even when HE was in Mary’s womb. If anything I would think Jesus would have cleansed Mary. Not Mary cleansing or preserving Jesus.
The other example is when Uzzah touched the Ark on the cart. He died instantly. This again shows that sin has no power at all over GOD. I could never believe that Jesus would be tainted with original sin if Mary was tainted. That’s saying that sin has power over GOD. Do you believe that is possible?? I’m interested to get your thoughts.
The final point I can make is the interpretation that gets attached to the famous word Kecharitomene. That’s where we always end up coming to in a discussion about Mary. The word does not mean literally full of grace. It means one who has been graced or one who has had grace bestowed to them. Since it’s used as a past event we see some who say it means that you are already full of grace. That it has happened. But the full of grace english really comes from gratiae plena which is the Latin Vulgate to english translation of Kecharitomene. The word pleres charitos (pronounced Play Race charitos) means literally full of Grace. This is how Stephen is described in Acts and how Jesus is described in John using the same word. The only other place we find a similar word to Kecharitomene is in Ephesians1:6 which is Echaritosen (enriched with grace). The verse would be transated as grace which HE freely bestowed which is similar to how Kecharitomene is interpreted. A theory is that Echaritosen is applied to a large group of people and Kecharitomene is applied to a singular person. It’s argued though that the bestowed grace of Echaritosen cannot be as full as the grace of Kecharitomene. And so on and so on.
What it finally comes down to is do we associate grace with sinlessness?? The answer is no because then we would all be sinless according to Ephesians. Unless we are going to ascribe certain levels of grace to mean sinlessness. That’s where the argument sometimes gets made that Kecharitomene means you were graced as in a past action. But then that just implies that GOD favoured Mary prior to the Angel addressing her. Unfortunately there’s no time limit that can be drawn from that though so it could have been that from the time Mary was conceived or born GOD favoured her to carry and deliver Jesus. Or it could have been a week before or a day before. But to go to the level of saying that at the time of conception she was graced so much it implies sinlessness is putting a meaning into a word that doesn’t belong. If you look up both words in the Greek lexicon, the definition listed is highly favoured, make accepted. This is how many Bibles list the verse. Douay Rheims lists it as full of grace because they are going from Greek to Latin to English. Sorry for such a long post but definitely interested in your feedback.
PEACE
J
justasking4
Guest
I think another passage that might help in understanding how Christ could live among and be born of Mary who was also a sinner can be found in Philippians 2:6-8 where Paul writes these words:
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
I think this in part explains how God could live among sinners without destroying them.
E
estesbob
Guest
Based on who’s interpretaion of Scripture? Yours? Luthers? Mine? How do we resolve this?
And where does scripture say that we are to rely only on Scripture? Gods plan for salvation is revealed only in a book that didnt exist when Jesus acscended to heavan(in fact was not codified for some 350 years after his ascension) and was not availabe to anyone but a very few until the invention of the printing press 1,400 years later???
E
estesbob
Guest
Greatt-so how do we resolve which of you is correct?
E
elvisman
Guest
Easy.
**According to the Catholic Church - I am. **
(kidding)
Actually, the Church is. I’m just one of the many mouthpieces . . .
S
steve_b
Guest
What word are you talking about? Acts 6:5 perhaps? That says Stephen is a man full of faith.
ND:
The word is a perfect participle.
In Greek :
The perfect tense expresses perfective action. Perfective action involves a continuing state of a past action that is a completed action.
"The Greek perfect differs from the Greek aorist in that it emphasizes the continuing result of the action which was completed in past time…
“Full of grace” is how the angel addressed Mary. Even before she says yes to the angel.
Her state is perfectly graced from the beginning, by God’s completed past action.
E
estesbob
Guest
And since Christ and his Church are one and the same I would say your source is preety solid.Easy.
According to the Catholic Church - I am.
(kidding)
Actually, the Church is. I’m just one of the many mouthpieces . . .
J
justasking4
Guest
Has the catholic church infallibly interpreted passages for the marian doctrines? If so, where?
Since it alone is inspired-inerrant it would the best thing to rely on.
This is not entirely correct. First there was the oral teachings then the writings of the apostles in the 1st century. There is no reason to think that things were being written down even while Jesus was alive. Luke in 1:1-4 certainly alludes to something like this.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church is not in the business of interpreating invidual verses of Scriptue/ The Marian Doctrines are proven by Scripture, tradition and teachings
Rely on based on who’s interpreation?
Note my comments in red We started with TRADTION and Sacred TEACHINGS. Scripture followed. For 1,500 years these three were used in combination to determine the Truth. Then the “reformers” rejected the first two and over 500 yeare of chaos has been the result.
H
honeysuckle
Guest
Where those scriptures are implicit it has. You are aware that the Marian doctrines are not based on explicit text, so it is a meaningless question.
justasking:
Again, you know that the scriptures do not say that they ALONE are inspired and inerrant.
justasking:
That’s totally irrelevant. This is one of the most irrational Protestant arguments out there. The early Christians OBVIOUSLY did not carry New Testaments, were not familiar with all of its writings, and did not have a consensus on WHICH New Convenant writings were inspired and inerrant. The New Testament was a written testimony of the authority and inerrancy of the inspired actions of the Church. The Church wrote the New Testament. The Church formed the canon. The Chruch is the insitituion through which the inspiration of the Holy Spirit works in all matters on earth, including the inspiration of writing and choosing inerrant scriptures.
F
fbl9
Guest
ND i did a little checking the lepers in St Matthew where not healed by Jesus’ touch but by His word the same way He cast out the demons and healed the centurian’s servant. the blind men He healed by His touch is mentioned though.in direct quote …strive to do the good deeds set out for us …the implication is that God has set out things for us to do ahead of time.and it through our love for Him that we discover these things and do them.opps again ND i also noticed it wasn’t Jesus who touched the bleeding woman but it was the other way around…“if i can just touch His cloak i will be healed…Jesus turning around said who touched me?”
B
brkn1
Guest
Keep studying your Bible.
There is a leper that Jesus touched as He healed him.
E
elt1956
Guest
So perhaps whoever wrote the Bible for God, s/he being human, left that part out??
B
brkn1
Guest
That is amazing! The RCC does not change or add to the Bible.Your ABSOLUTELY right!
Nothing can or should be added to the Gospel. That’s why the Catholic Church *doesn’t *do this . . .
P.S. - Please read my post #507. It was an answer to your earlier question. You haven’t addressed it yet.
The office of Bishop in 1Timothy 3 is supposed to be the husband of one wife etc. That seems to have changed according to RCC version of biblical instruction and tradition.
1Timothy 4:3…“Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”
E
estesbob
Guest
Correct.
Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. No is forbidden to marry. The vow of celibacy is taken freely. NOBODY is forced to take it.
- Status