B
brkn1
Guest
Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law.
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
Again, brkn - PLEASE read my previous posts where this was discussed with NDfan. It’s all laid out there.
I never said that GOD himself dwelt within the Ark.
I don’t want to keep repeating my points.
Go back and read . . .
E
elvisman
Guest
That’s true - he did.
Can point me to the Scripture that says Peter’s wife was alive when this happened?
I may have missed that . . .
C
Complexity
Guest
The post in which you are quoting cited Peter’s wife’s mother (mother-in-law)… though you wrote “wife.” Maybe a typo… but here’s the Scriptural reference:
Matthew 8:14-16
*14 And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.
15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. 16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:*
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Repeat away Giovanni. I never get tired of reading or hearing it. I could offer a little more insight into Jesus in his mother’s womb and His not dwelling where sin is present.
This Precious Blood which saves us (and washes away our sins and makes us whole again). This Precious Blood which was shed on the way to Calvary and poured out on the Cross;and (Heb. 12:24) which speaks more eloquently than the blood of Abel, was formed as the blood of every human being’s blood is formed in it’s mother’s womb. The biological identity of Christ’s blood was drawn out of the identity of his Mother’s blood. A little ridiculous , don’t you think?..that the Blood which redeems all mankind could have for its foundation and origins the blood of a sinner.
Wait, it gets better. Mary conceived without human intervention. So those who think she sinned are saying that God the Holy Spirit in his Mysterious Overshadowing whose fruit is the Incarnation, not only dwelt where sin was but also co-created with it.
Obliged to logically follow this train of thought we need to now include Our Heavenly Father in the recipe; because if Christ now belongs to Psalm 50 as we do “In guilt I was born, a sinner was I conceived”, and the Holy Spirit co-created with sin, then God the Father is sin too since Jesus said, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30).
Preposterous with a capital “P” wouldn’t you say? That’s where one ends up if they logically pursue denial of the Immaculate Conception.
In the Magnificat Mary the Mother of God calls God her saviour (Luke 1:47), not because she was a sinner, not because God purified her from sin at her conception, but because God preserved his Mother from all stain of sin always and forever.He gave her this singular privilege.Wouldn’t any one of us want to do that for our own mother if we could ?
I had read somewhere that Jesus said, “Whoever honors my Mother honors me.”.If you find it or know where it is written maybe you could post that info here. I’ve read some beautiful expressions of love for our Blessed Mother in this thread. Thank-you for sharing them and God bless you each and all.
G
guanophore
Guest
God chose to unite His Spirit in the form of a man. He did this through human conception. Mary became pregant because the Spirit of God overshadowed her. This is why we say she is espoused by the HS.
Not by our own power, surely.
Phil 2:13
God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
But we can cooperate with the HS who by grace can enable us to choose not to sin. This is what Mary did.
And this awareness is indeed part of that protection. Becoming aware of our tendencies will help us to manage them better. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary was “protected” or “prevented” from sinning, but that she chose not to sin. She cooperated with the HS at work within her to will and do do God’s good pleasure.
Jesus says “if your brother sins against you”. You of all people seem to feel that Catholics have sinned against you mightily, and other people, by teaching false doctrines. I don’t see that there is a difference.
What makes you think the RCC has issued “complete interpretations for the entire bible”? No such thing has happened. But, it is also more than 3 verses. Here is a good article on it.
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp
The Catechisms present the Teaching of the Church. Scripture is used to support and explain the Teachings. They are not “interpretations” of scripture. Catholicism is not a "bible based’ religion.
E
elt1956
Guest
Most of what is posted on these forums is provable only through Faith. That is what makes it so hard to 'REASON" with others who don’t believe the same. Calling names and hurling insults usually stops the impetus for knowledge and understanding because EVERYBODY believes they are right. I just hate it when minds are closed. Could be fear???
D
DCD
Guest
Do you care to offer any proof of this statement? I know of no teaching by Holy Mother Church that would foster a “pessimistic view of humans”.Actually sin exists in infants only if one believes in Original Sin as the Catholic Church teaches. The Church sometimes has a pessamistic view of humans, but that’s the way it goes.Peace.
Peace,
DCD
G
guanophore
Guest
Do you not believe that Jesus was speaking to the Apostles when he authorized them to make disciples?
Matt 28:18-19
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples”
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is “subordinate”. On the contrary, the Holy Writings and the Holy Tradition are equal in truth and authority because they both come from the same Source. To whom was authority given, then?
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15
Don’t you think the persons who wrote the texts had a pretty good idea what they meant to say?
E
elt1956
Guest
In all of the forums I have subscribed to on CAF all have eventually descended into the name calling, I’m right, you’re wrong status. All interpretation of a belief being right, or wrong, including scriptoral quotes, depends first of all on an individual’s Faith, whether it be only in the Bible, or through the belief in the Doctrines of a Church. What is the point of these postings if through obstinence, one cannot come to grips with even the “hint” that FAITH in anything is NOT provable? I came to these forums to learn more about my Church from others and to learn of the beliefs of other people, NOT to prostelysize, or block learning and communication with others through having a “stiff” neck. This is not aimed at only you Mozart. Everybody, GET A GRIP!!!
E
elt1956
Guest
Best explanation I have seen yet.
Peace.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is both, ja4. Those fallible men you are always complaining about were an integral part of that process:
2 Peter 1:19-21
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but** men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."**
The scripture did not drop out of the sky. It came from the mind, heart, and pens of those fallible men.
B
brkn1
Guest
Hi Needimprovement,
It is likely that the quote you gave is something you read in the CCC.
If someone can find that quote regarding Mary in the Bible, I would be most interested.
May the Lord bless you.
H
happychristian
Guest
Who can better verify the Immaculate Conception of Mary except Mama Mary herself.
In Lourdes, France she appeared to St. Bernadette and when she asked her who she is and whats her name she answered in her native dialect, **I am the Immaculate Conception.
/B]Mama Mary also appeared to St Catherine and she asked her to make the miraculous medal with the inscription, Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Is this true or not, let alone thousands of healing documented and not in Lourdes and thousands of conversions in wearing the miraculous medal speak for itself.Let alone the uncorruptable corpse of the 2 saints speak for itself whether the apparitions are real or hoax.
Mama Mary already said she was conceived without sin, Amen.Its up to you to beleive in her words or not. Its hers or yours.
To an unbeliever no explanation is enough, to a believer no explanation is needed - St Bernadette of Lourdes**
In Lourdes, France she appeared to St. Bernadette and when she asked her who she is and whats her name she answered in her native dialect, **I am the Immaculate Conception.
/B]Mama Mary also appeared to St Catherine and she asked her to make the miraculous medal with the inscription, Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Is this true or not, let alone thousands of healing documented and not in Lourdes and thousands of conversions in wearing the miraculous medal speak for itself.Let alone the uncorruptable corpse of the 2 saints speak for itself whether the apparitions are real or hoax.
Mama Mary already said she was conceived without sin, Amen.Its up to you to beleive in her words or not. Its hers or yours.
To an unbeliever no explanation is enough, to a believer no explanation is needed - St Bernadette of Lourdes**
E
elt1956
Guest
Not a Bible quoter, but I think there is something in the Bible about Jesus curing Peter’s mother-in- law and then she got up from her sick bed and cooked for them. What is a woman to do???
Peace
P
peary
Guest
originally posted by NDfan:
Highly favoured is a closer english interpretation for kecharitomene.
No. The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that* (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”)*. The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
Highly favoured is a closer english interpretation for kecharitomene.
No. The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that* (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”)*. The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
D
DCD
Guest
Why would Gabriel who has just come from the throne of God greet a mere human, “Hail full of grace?” This is unparalled in salvation history:thumbsup:
BVM defender,
DCD
M
mozart-250
Guest
No, not thus the Immaculate Conception.
Most of the debate concerning the Catholic assumptions surrounding the Immaculate Conception in this thread is unnecessary.
The problem with the Immaculate Conception is that even if I grant every Catholic assumption concerning it, the Immaculate Conception is not the only possible conclusion.
There are less shall I say dramatic conclusions available where I don’t need to provide an exception to Romans 3:23. When I can easily come up with conclusions that don’t provide an exception, I have absolutely no reason to believe that an exception is warranted for Mary.
For this assumption (and all Catholic assumptions) I could just as easily come up with:
(a) Mary was sinless during the 9 month pregnancy
or
(b) Mary was sinless from the pregnancy onward.
Neither of the above conclusions require providing an exception to Romans 3:23. So why again should I believe that Mary was an exception to “All have sinned”.
E
elvisman
Guest
Complexity -
I was responding to brkn1’s claim that Peter was married when Jesus chose him.
He cited the fact that Peter had a mother-in-law. I merely pointed out to him that Peter’s wife is never mentioned - probably because she was dead.
Peace out.
L
Lapell
Guest
Yes, God is the author and source… of the Church as well as of the Scriptures.
The Church, however, is who, under the holy Spirit’s guidance, established the canon of the New Testament (which books were to be included and which were not to)…
And no one has the authority to say that certain books included in the canon of the NT should not be there or that books not included in the canon should have been!
- Status