G
Good_Fella
Guest
BUT DEATH REIGNED FROM ADAM TO MOSES, EVEN OVER THOSE WHO DID NOT SIN AFTER THE PATTERN OF THE TRESPASS OF ADAM, WHO IS THE TYPE OF THE ONE WHO WAS TO COME.
[ROMANS 5, 14]
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
- Status
[ROMANS 5, 14]
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
S
steve_b
Guest
It’s not pleres charitos but pleres pistis = faith
ND:
it’s perfect tense.
ND:
present tense for Echaritosen is not perfect tense for Kecharitomene
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Mankind is implicated in the sin of Adam. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is “sufficient” sin passed on to her. And so she could be excepted from sin as Enoch and Elijah were excepted from death. The transmission of universal sin and death are not necessary. God can intervene if he wills in accordance with his wisdom and as is fitting to his purpose.
NDFan claims that Jesus could not contract original sin, being a divine person. On the other hand, you claim that the virgin birth was necessary so that Jesus would not inherit the sin of Adam. We find another Protestant contradiction in mere fallible theological speculation. :yup:
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
mozart-250
Guest
Of course that is the bottom line.The Catholic answers are sufficient. That is enough to warrant their veracity.
The Catholic perspective is not the only possible conclusion, for the Church cannot put a constraint on God. But the Catholic perception is the final conclusion, for the Catholic Church is the voice of Christ. Our Lord did not found or abandon His Church at the time of Luther’s revolt and separation from her.
Mary was sinless during her entire life, for she was conceived without original sin at the instant God fashioned her soul. Paul is telling us that the human race is “implicated” in the first sin of Adam. One can be implicated without necessarily being directly involved in something. Mary was potentially subject to sin, and she was in need of a saviour, but God preserved her from actually inheriting the stain of original sin and redeemed her by the merits of Christ’s death as soon as she came into existence in her mother’s womb.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Mary was (a) sinless during her entire lifetime (b) conceived without original sin…because…
…the Catholic church says so…
No matter whether it seems to violate Romans 3:23 or not. No matter whether there are better explanations available that do not violate Romans 3:23.
…the Catholic church says so…
Every other argument here is fluff.
Of course the issue here is that why should I believe your denomination just because it says so. I don’t take the word of any other denomination just because it says so (including my own). I need evidence. If I were to start taking the word of any random denomination without clear and convincing evidence, again you can get me to believe anything.
But that again is another issue.
My time in this thread I guess is done.
Ciao.
E
estesbob
Guest
And has said so consintently for 2,000 years.
It violates Roamn 3:23 ONLY if we accept your personal interpreation of it
.
The arguments may appear be fluff to you since you have reached profound theological conclusions based om exactly one verse of Scripture. You have insisted this issue be discussed ONLY using Scripture and ONLY using your personal interpreation of Scripture.
The Catholic Church is not a denonmination and it most certainly isnt a random denomination. Of all the arguments on every major Doctrinal issue the Church is the only one that can point to 2,000 years of consintent teachings-teachings that for the most part were accepted by all Chrisians for the better part of 1,500 years.
You say why should you believe something a random denomination tells you? Well lets reverse that- why should we believe a random , anonymous poster over the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Edith Stein et al? What reason can you give us,other than your personal interpreation of a single verse of Scripture, to reject 2,000 years of teaching.
I can see St Thomas, after puting his fingures in Jesus’s wounds saying “well thats all well and good but show me where its written down”
P
PetersKeys
Guest
What do you mean thats not what is said in the bible? Do you know how much the bible talks about baptism? The last words of Jesus were to Baptize in the name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit. How can you hold such a heretical view?
Baptism does wash away original sin. Jesus said being born again through WATER(baptism) and Spirit. One becomes washed away at baptism and is christian. Being born again starts with Baptism(since Jesus says Water) and then the Spirit(believe in the ressurection and the forgiveness of sins). if you take away the importance of baptism you do so against Christs command(and his last one on earth). In the book of Acts we see tons of people being baptized. Peter says to believe and be baptized.
Secondly the greek word for ALL in the bible suggest a large amount of people, but not everyone on earth.
Secondly the Angel Gabriel calls Mary FULL of grace. You cannot be full of grace in sin. Lastly the extrodinary miracle at Fatima confirms this.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is not violated - only your faulty interpretation of the scriptures is. Of course, it’s natural for you to try to prove the Church wrong, by appealing to our Holy Book, in order to justify the legitimacy of your existence.
The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Denominations arise with schisms and so-called reformations. How many “reformations” have occurred in Protestantism since the time of Luther? We have lost count. What’s your denomination, so we know where you’re coming from? You bicker among yourselves over essential doctrines and have never managed to be a united faith unless you challenge Catholicism and the one Church. Ciao.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
D
distracted
Guest
Protestant pastors say Scripture is easy to understand… but not all of it is…
and of course, there is always the problem of how, if scripture was so easy to interpret, why are there 35,000 different Christian religions??
G
guanophore
Guest
How come that method works for the canon, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, worship on Sundays and so many other doctrines?
J
justasking4
Guest
This is something i had not seen before i.e. Sacred Tradition is “infallible”. As i understand the term Sacred Tradiiton it encompasses the Scriptures but it is also something more. Correct?guanophore;3517212]
By reading it in the light of the infallible Sacred Tradition from which it was produced!
Do catholics trust that their leaders are telling the truth at all times?
Notice the context of the passage. Jesus is telling His disciples specifically what will happen to them. He is not making a blank promise to the entire church for ages to come.
Not so. The seeds of confusion that misleads catholics is not being done by me but those like yourself who defend all that the catholic church teaches when you should know full well that much of it is the speculations of men. You should be telling your fellow catholics to beware.
E
estesbob
Guest
3 part test:
Does it agree with Sacred Scipture?
Does it agree with Sacred Tradition?
Does it agree with Sacred Teaching?
No. .
Based on you interpretation. Why should we accept it?
The confusion started when the “reformers” took God and his Church out of the eqaution and told each individual they could figure things out for hemsleves.
E
elt1956
Guest
Doesn’t belief boil down to an individual’s receiving the Grace from God to so believe. Faith pitted against arguments and rationalzation will never convince anyone who doesn’t want to believe. Although I just cringe at being less than erudite, who has ever answered to everyone’s satisfaction, “Which came first the chicken, or the egg”?
J
justasking4
Guest
Can you give me 2-3 examples of Sacred Tradition outside the Scriptures?
What do you do when something is unknown to the NT Christians and those who lived centuries after them? For example there is no Sacred Teachings (whatever these are) in regards to Mary being medatrix of all graces in the early centuries. Or take her supposed assumption. It is unknown what happened to her and not mentioned until 377. There is no Scripture or “Sacred Teaching” for this before this time at least. It would appear that the tests you mention shows that these doctrines fail the tests.
Huh??? i thought they were led by the HS and incapable of erring in matters of faith and morals.
Go read the chapters before and after and see if i’m correct.
Do you have a source for this? Secondly do you believe that a person can read the Scriptures and can come to understand what most of it means for the most part? For example can a person read the Mark and come away with a greater udnerstanding of Christ i.e. that He worked miracles of healing, or that He forgave sins and rose again?
G
guanophore
Guest
You acted surprised with jmcrae last week when she told you the same thing. Are you trying to act innocent, or is your memory bad? How can an inerrant - inspired text be created from something that is not infallible? Yes, the Divine Revelation includes the Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scripture. The whole of the NT was formed from the Teachings of Jesus to the Apostles.
Of course not!
Was Peter acting in honesty when he refused to eat with the Gentiles? He is a fallible human being, just like the rest of us. 
Yeah, I read where you invented something you called “the written age” but that is not scriptural. We are in the Church age, and will be until Jesus comes for us.
ja4, how many times must I tell you that it is inappropriate for you, as an anti-Catholic, to come to a Catholic forum and instruct us about what we “should” do? This is a violation of the forum rules, disrespecting the faith of Catholics, and attempting to pull them away from it. This sort of activity always gets people banned.
There is plenty of speculative theology in the Church. However, the Revelation of God is not part of it. Men may speculate about what His revelation means, but the Revelation is innerrant because it comes from God.
ja4, Sacred Tradition is considered a great pearl for Catholics, and we have been instructed not to throw our pearls before those who will trample them into the mud, as you have repeatedly done. You are not qualified to know the Sacred Traditions, because you are faithless and disrespectful of them. When you can accept those that have already been revealed, then perhaps you will be ready to move on into the deeper mysteries.
Catholics don’t separate the Scripture from the Oral Tradition, one would be hard put to find things that are in one place, but not the other. The Divine Revelation is One.
The table of contents of the Bible
Trinity
Hypostatic union
Observation of the Sabbath on Sunday
Apostles Creed and Nicean Creed to name a few.
It is rejected. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, “Me and Jesus and nobody else” and a number of other modern innovations meet that criteria.
I understand it appears that way to you, and I think it is because you have chosen not to accept part of the revelation that has been given.
What you are describing here are infallible pronouncements from the magesterium. This should not be confused with impeccability. Sinners are capable of doing perfect things. That is why we have a Bible.
You are not correct. End of the Age means until the Church is taken up.
I believe that a person who reads the bible can gain a greater understanding of God’s plan for mankind, yes.
Do you have a source for this? Secondly do you believe that a person can read the Scriptures and can come to understand what most of it means for the most part? For example can a person read the Mark and come away with a greater udnerstanding of Christ i.e. that He worked miracles of healing, or that He forgave sins and rose again?
P
planten
Guest
**
The christian faith is a complete mystery. The original sin and all prophets are sinners. But the christians want to keep Jesus out of the list of the sinners. Why?. They say that wages of sin are death. Jesus died too. So he must have been a sinner. He died. That was due to some sin, or not?.
The church wangles the matter here and there. We Muslims tell them that no man is a born sinner. The prophets are not sinners at all, Jesus and all. The church loves to make the prophets sinners. But they do not want that jesus should be a sinner even though he is a man and a prophet too. Why is that a special rule (loophole) for Jesus only. Let him be a sinner too.
That is why he died too. And then he got up from the dead. The only person who did that. But after walking about and going to Galilee, he never said to any one that he had died and got up again. There is no such word in the bible. Jesus is not saying any such thing. But the christians are preaching that line.
As far as Muslims are concerned, no man is a born sinner. Prophets are not sinners. (The bad examples of some prophets in the bible OT is totally wrong, Nothing like that is mentioned in the Quran.) Mary was also not sinner. Not at all. But who believes us !!**
The christian faith is a complete mystery. The original sin and all prophets are sinners. But the christians want to keep Jesus out of the list of the sinners. Why?. They say that wages of sin are death. Jesus died too. So he must have been a sinner. He died. That was due to some sin, or not?.
The church wangles the matter here and there. We Muslims tell them that no man is a born sinner. The prophets are not sinners at all, Jesus and all. The church loves to make the prophets sinners. But they do not want that jesus should be a sinner even though he is a man and a prophet too. Why is that a special rule (loophole) for Jesus only. Let him be a sinner too.
That is why he died too. And then he got up from the dead. The only person who did that. But after walking about and going to Galilee, he never said to any one that he had died and got up again. There is no such word in the bible. Jesus is not saying any such thing. But the christians are preaching that line.
As far as Muslims are concerned, no man is a born sinner. Prophets are not sinners. (The bad examples of some prophets in the bible OT is totally wrong, Nothing like that is mentioned in the Quran.) Mary was also not sinner. Not at all. But who believes us !!**
B
brkn1
Guest
Hey you Muslims, I can discuss this as you do in this post.
Yes I no have read your Koran much, but I know what it says anyway, so I give you advice:
Mohammed was sinner very much and bad man. Why you no see that . It must tell that to you in your book even though I never really study it but I still give you advice anyway.
No I do not believe you .
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
The “All” in Romans was never intended to be an absolute statement and this mis-rendering from the Latin to English seems to be the core of the Protestant argument about Mary’s state during her life.
So I may point to the word “All”-the Latin Pas-as used in Romans 15:14;
“I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.”
So are you saying that the Christians in the Roman church have a complete knowledge without exception? Are you saying that they know everything absolutely?
Hardly because God is the only one who could possess ALL knowledge.
The Latin Pas is a word used to describe “of many kinds, or of many sorts.” This actual meaning help make the scripture make more sense. Did the Roman Christians have ALL knowledge? No. Did they have knowledge of many kinds? I would say that is more likely.
The proper translation of the passage would read: "“I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with many types and many sorts of knowledge, and able to instruct one another.”
The same word is used in Romans 5:12. The “all” used is not an absolute. Jesus was born as a man, born of a woman and born under the Law, yet Jesus was sinless. So obviously the “all” of 5:12 is not absolute.
B
brkn1
Guest
Yes, Jesus was born a man, but you seem to ignore that He was both God and Man as the Son of Man which He used to describe Himself.
No man has the right to take on that title the way Jesus did, so your argument that Jesus was born (merely) as a man is invalid.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
I do not ascribe to whatever you’re trying to imply about my belief in Jesus. I hold the Catholic faith that Jesus is true man and true God.
What I was doing was pointing out the error in the rendering of the Latin word “pas” to English “all” and then determining that “all” is to mean something that the original Latin text didn’t intend. Which is what is happening when Protestants argue this passage in Romans.
D
DLC
Guest
When the Bible says that “all have sinned” Romans 3:23, of course it does not mean Jesus, unless God is a sinner. It refers to all mankind even Mary has sinned. How hard is that understand. Mary was not sinless or even exempt from original sin. No Bible passage even in the slightest sense refers this this idea.
- Status