B
brkn1
Guest
But obviously Peter’s wife IS mentioned once and she is not identified as the LATE wife of Peter as you conveniently assume.
- Status
N
NDfan
Guest
Estes and Elvis I’ll reply to you both.
Elvis my brother you may be right
Estes here is what I would submit to you. As far as who is right and who is wrong. I don’t think there is a definitive answer either way. I think in the end there will be some elements that both sides will get wrong.
Given that I think there is so much common ground from which to build for Roman Catholics, EOs, Protestants etc. Instead of having doctrines that are required for belief, why can’t we have official statements that outline beliefs that we feel are gleened from the text of scripture. In some cases we may have a few statements that could vary like in the case of Mary. But with no disrespect to her at all, I do not have to believe anything about her personally to go to Heaven. My salvation is based solely on my acceptance of Jesus as my savior.
For things related to salvation I don’t think there is any room for multiple interpretations. Jesus is our savior period end of story. We are to get baptized and participate in the Lord’s supper. So instead of arguing over who may be right and wrong let’s focus on what’s absolutely necessary for salvation and find our common ground there. Things that are not necessary for salvation can be debated in a good natured and spirited way.
If the relationship was managed better between all sides then I think we would find everyone would be more in agreement than disagreement. Now I’ve run into people who are so anti-Roman Catholic that anything the RCC states is viewed as wrong and the opposite view is taken so it doesn’t appear they have anything to do with Catholicism. But I think that stems from some statements like no salvation outside the Catholic church, you don’t have a valid Eucharist etc. So I view both sides as being guilty. I was very hopeful that Benedict would be the bridge to all that hostility but I think he shot himself in the foot last year.
Thoughts?
PEACE
L
Lampo
Guest
There is. Was Peter’s wife alive at the time?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
E
East_and_West
Guest
I am sorry but this is about the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. First, he behaves as if the Vatican is the Church or the Papacy. That is silly. Second, nowhere does the Church teach us that Sin is mearly a stain that can be washed away by plain wather. Rather, we believe that we are creatures in need of redemption by the sacrifice of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ extends this grace to us through the sacraments. I always think its funny when protestants, who profess a religion invented by men, criticize the Catholic Faith that was established by Jesus on the Apostles. Its amazing.
H
honeysuckle
Guest
I do. I think that’s a very charitable statement, and very true. There is more that joins all who are baptized (Nicene) than separates us.Estes and Elvis I’ll reply to you both.
Elvis my brother you may be right
Estes here is what I would submit to you. As far as who is right and who is wrong. I don’t think there is a definitive answer either way. I think in the end there will be some elements that both sides will get wrong.
Given that I think there is so much common ground from which to build for Roman Catholics, EOs, Protestants etc. Instead of having doctrines that are required for belief, why can’t we have official statements that outline beliefs that we feel are gleened from the text of scripture. In some cases we may have a few statements that could vary like in the case of Mary. But with no disrespect to her at all, I do not have to believe anything about her personally to go to Heaven. My salvation is based solely on my acceptance of Jesus as my savior.
For things related to salvation I don’t think there is any room for multiple interpretations. Jesus is our savior period end of story. We are to get baptized and participate in the Lord’s supper. So instead of arguing over who may be right and wrong let’s focus on what’s absolutely necessary for salvation and find our common ground there. Things that are not necessary for salvation can be debated in a good natured and spirited way.
If the relationship was managed better between all sides then I think we would find everyone would be more in agreement than disagreement. Now I’ve run into people who are so anti-Roman Catholic that anything the RCC states is viewed as wrong and the opposite view is taken so it doesn’t appear they have anything to do with Catholicism. But I think that stems from some statements like no salvation outside the Catholic church, you don’t have a valid Eucharist etc. So I view both sides as being guilty. I was very hopeful that Benedict would be the bridge to all that hostility but I think he shot himself in the foot last year.
Thoughts?
PEACE
E
estesbob
Guest
The Lord did not give us a defintive answer on something as important as our eternal salvation ?Estes and Elvis I’ll reply to you both.
Elvis my brother you may be right
Estes here is what I would submit to you. As far as who is right and who is wrong. I don’t think there is a definitive answer either way. I think in the end there will be some elements that both sides will get wrong.
You simply can not paper over the HUGE doctrinal differences between the Church and Protestants. It is even harder to paper over the differences among Protestants. Some beleive in the trinity, some do not. Some believe in predestination. , some do not,some believe we are damned if we worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, some do not. some believe once we are saved we are always saved, , some do not. Some believe in slavation by faith alone, some do not
We cant all be right. Logic would seem to indicate that Chirst would leave us infallible, unchangeing guidance on this . Since we have seen the utter chaos that ensued when people abandoned the Church and sought their own version of the truth the logical conclusion is that Our seperated Bretheren need to come home. We’ll leave the “light” on for you.
E
East_and_West
Guest
How do you know she was saved, that’s not in the bible. How do you know Jesus ever was 16 years old, that’s not in the bible. How do you know George washington ever lived. That’s not in the bible. How do you know what books go in the bible? That’s not in the bible. Sola Scriptura is the silliest doctrine ever to be created by man.
D
distracted
Guest
I knew that… I just didn’t write what was in my head… happens all the time, unfortunately… :hypno:Yeah we’ve seen all these arguments
N
NDfan
Guest
Steve I was referring to Acts 6:8:
And Stephen, **full of grace **and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.
The word used there is **pleres charitos **which literally translates to full of grace. This is the same word used to describe Jesus in John 1:6:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth
Steve you are 100% correct brother. Kecharitomene definitely signifies a past action but the word does not define the time frame and we are not told by the Angel when it happened. So it could have happened at conception or at birth or 2 days prior to the visit. It also does not literally translate to full of grace. That’s a transliteration taken from the Latin gratiae plena. It’s true literal translation is one who has been bestowed with grace. The significance is that the person has already been graced and no doubt the state continues after the action has happened.
Now here is something to consider. The Greek verb charitoo only appears twice in the NT. In Luke and in Ephesians. Echaritosen is used in Ephesians and represents a different tense of the same verb charitoo. Kecharitomene is past tense and Echaritosen is present tense. So one has to interpret that if Mary was graced previously and it made her sinless, then one would also have to say that the Ephesians received this same grace which made them sinless. It can’t be one way for Mary and another for the Ephesians since they both received that same root word charitoo.
Steve again this is how it’s transliterated. That’s not the literal translation. NASB now uses highly favoured which I believe is a Roman Catholic endorsed Bible. But that’s not the issue. The issue would be if you translate full of grace in Luke then you have to translate full of grace in Ephesians which would look something like:
Greetings, full of grace for Luke; and to the praise of his glorious fullness of grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved for Ephesians. That may not be perfect as I’m not a Greek scholar but the bottom line is in both instances, each received the same grace.
PEACE
B
brkn1
Guest
This may have been mentioned before, but it bears repeating if it was already mentioned.
If you read (Romans 5:12), it says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
If you study this verse, along with the context of the chapter, you will see that it is the man that passes on the original sin nature in normal procreation; not the woman.
Contact with flesh does not necessarily transmit sin either or you could not touch or be touched by another person without being contaminated by sin the way Pharisee types think. You could not help pull someone out of a ditch if that nonsense were true.
Since a man was not involved in the conception of Jesus, original sin could not be passed on. That would make for an immaculate conception, but for Jesus only.
This can not be the case for Mary, since she had a father who was a man.
Mary did not have to be sinless for Jesus to be born sinless.
There is only one immaculate conception and that is Jesus’ conception, Whose Father was God, not a man who could pass the results of original sin onto the child.
If you read (Romans 5:12), it says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
If you study this verse, along with the context of the chapter, you will see that it is the man that passes on the original sin nature in normal procreation; not the woman.
Contact with flesh does not necessarily transmit sin either or you could not touch or be touched by another person without being contaminated by sin the way Pharisee types think. You could not help pull someone out of a ditch if that nonsense were true.
Since a man was not involved in the conception of Jesus, original sin could not be passed on. That would make for an immaculate conception, but for Jesus only.
This can not be the case for Mary, since she had a father who was a man.
Mary did not have to be sinless for Jesus to be born sinless.
There is only one immaculate conception and that is Jesus’ conception, Whose Father was God, not a man who could pass the results of original sin onto the child.
N
NDfan
Guest
FBL sorry but you stand corrected. Please read Matthew:
8:1 When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. 2 And behold, a leper [1] came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” 3 And Jesus [2] stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
As far as the woman you are correct in that she touched HIM and Jesus immediately felt healing power leave HIM. But again a bleeding woman would have defiled someone by her touch as well. It doesn’t matter how the touching ocurs, it still defiles you. But in this case it healed her.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
Absolutely it’s actually right in Matthew as I stated.
8:1 When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. 2 And behold, a leper [1] came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” 3 And Jesus [2] stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
Thanks for helping
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
But Estes if I wanted to be a Priest I could not marry. If I were a priest I could not marry as well. It may be a discipline but suppose someone doesn’t want to partake in that discipline but still wants to be a priest? They can’t. Saying it’s a discipline is kind of dancing around the primary objection.
H
honeysuckle
Guest
Priests are in a unique role in passing down the sacraments to the Church. But you don’t do that as a Protestant anyway, so it would make no difference. Protestants don’t believe they have a unique role as a dispenser of grace through apostolic succession, anyway. Anything and everything a Protestant minister does (with the exception of holding authority over the Church) can be done by a Catholic lay minister.
You could not be a priest, but you could be a lay minister. You could be a liturgical director, an associate pastor, a children’s director…
You could be a Eucharistic minister, and still participate in the sacraments, you could be a reader for the first two Mass readings…
The list is endless.
You could not be a priest, but you could be a lay minister. You could be a liturgical director, an associate pastor, a children’s director…
You could be a Eucharistic minister, and still participate in the sacraments, you could be a reader for the first two Mass readings…
The list is endless.
H
honeysuckle
Guest
It’s just a preference of the Church, anyway, nobody has ever said that God commands celibacy, which is why the rule does not line up with the Scriptural warning of those who depart from the faith and forbid marriage.
In fact a Latin Rite Lutheran or Episcopalian minister who is married may convert to Catholicism and remain married.
In fact a Latin Rite Lutheran or Episcopalian minister who is married may convert to Catholicism and remain married.
N
NDfan
Guest
Faith as mentioned in another post the word charitoo only appears twice in the NT. In Luke to describe Mary and in Ephesians to describe the people of the church in Ephesus. The only difference is Kecharitomene means it happened in the past sometime and Echaritosen means it happened in the present. But in both instances each party receives the same form of the root word grace which is Charitoo. So if Mary was sinless then so were the Ephesians and all their descendants.
And yes Jesus did receive flesh from Mary but in HIS divine state being conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit it was impossible for her to pass the stain of sin to HIM. Just as Jesus was not defiled by the leper HE touched or the demon possessed man. Again GOD cannot be stained by sin by touching a sinful person. It’s impossible.
I agree on the past and present nature of scripture. It makes sense that Genesis is referring to Jesus because we now know that he is the one who strikes down the devil. We also know that the devil nipped at HIS heel which is the crucifixion. But saying that Mary is the woman doesn’t make sense. Jesus is an eventual offspring of Eve just like Mary. So in saying that there will be hostility between the descendants or seed of the serpent and the descendants or seed of the woman means Eve. GOD created hostility or enmity between the 2 right away as seen in OT scripture. Eve is the mother of all humanity not Mary. We don’t descend from Mary.
PEACE be with you too always
N
NDfan
Guest
Actually Genesis I think he is saying only one wife at a time. Remember the pagans had multiple wives and pagans eventually would become church leaders. So Paul is saying you can’t be married to 2 wives, hence the husband of one wife statement.
PEACE
E
estesbob
Guest
No dancing around at all. There is a huge difference between a discipline(which the Pope could do away with the stroke of his pen) and a Doctrine(which can never be changed ) There are married Priests all over the US-mostly former Epicopal Priests who have come home.
N
NDfan
Guest
Giovanni GOD dwelled in the Temple where there was sin. Jesus dwelled among sinners and came in contact with them. The Holy Spirit dwells in us upon baptism. Does that mean the Holy Spirit is now stained with sin??
PEACE
E
elvisman
Guest
brkn1 - Are you for real?**
You make outlandish statements like “the LATE wife” of Peter, as if that sort of modern colloquialism was even used at the time. If his wife WAS alive, it would have been HER - and NOT the mother who waited on them. After all, it was her’s and Peter’s house - NOT her mother’s.
You also make the assertion that original sin is passed on through the father only. Talk about traditions of men!
Whereas a few theological scholars believe this to be so, it is nothing more than an invention meant to minimize the Virgin Mary.
If this isn’t true, then you anti-Marianists don’t have a leg to stand on. the fact that Paul was saying that through one man, sin entered into the world has NOTHING to do with your falsehood that only men pass on Original Sin.
If you read on - in context - you will see that Paul was making a comparison that Jesus alone saves us. Or, didn’t you read the part in Genesis about Eve sinning as well?
Read the scriptures CAREfully, my friend - and in context.
- Status