Could Mary have sinned?

[Rbt_Southwell]

Where do we find the inspired-inerrant Word of God if not the Scriptures? Because of this, there is no other binding teaching on the Christian. Nothing has greater authortity than the scriptures; no man, church etc can be greater than the Scriptures.

Let me pump a little sunshine up there and clear things up for you, justasking4it.

We have the Bible because the Catholic Church taught those things referred in it. We DO NOT have the gnostic bible, the Ethiopian bible, the Syrio-Aramaic bible. There are no Gospels of Thomas, of Mary, of Peter in your bible because of the early Church, the CATHOLIC Church.

It is not some secret code waiting to be opened up by personal interpretation. It is a record of God’s covenants with His people and their constant failings to follow His law prior to the sending of Jesus.

The Word is Jesus. His teachings are the only authority in the Church. Scripture itself quotes Jesus as teaching the 12 Apostles things that He will not teach the multitudes or His other followers.

You claim “no man…can be greater than the Scriptures.”

One was and is, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah for all nations.

You blithely and flippantly ignore direct questions asking for specific citations from your bible as to where YOU get that INFALLIBLE interpretive gift. Yet, you do not see the irony and hypocrisy of your statements.

You need to seek wisdom, brother, not argument.

Robert

 

[justasking4]

Rbt Southwell;3303739]Let me pump a little sunshine up there and clear things up for you, justasking4it.

We have the Bible because the Catholic Church taught those things referred in it.

Your church goes far beyond what the scriptures teach.

We DO NOT have the gnostic bible, the Ethiopian bible, the Syrio-Aramaic bible. There are no Gospels of Thomas, of Mary, of Peter in your bible because of the early Church, the CATHOLIC Church.

The reason we have the Scriptures is because Christ used the church to determine the NT canon. If not for the Spirit of Christ there would be no Bible. The church was not necessary for the Scriptures to be known (although God used the church) for the NT but not for the OT. He used the Jewish people for that task.

It is not some secret code waiting to be opened up by personal interpretation. It is a record of God’s covenants with His people and their constant failings to follow His law prior to the sending of Jesus.

Much of it can be understood by a person who can read.

The Word is Jesus. His teachings are the only authority in the Church.

Is it not true that the pope and the magisterium are also authorities in the catholic church?

Scripture itself quotes Jesus as teaching the 12 things that He will not teach the multitudes or His other followers.

You claim “no man…can be greater than the Scriptures.”

One was and is, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah for all nations.

This is partly true. Jesus was also God in the flesh.

You blithely and flippantly ignore direct questions asking for specific citations from your bible as to where YOU get that INFALLIBLE interpretive gift. Yet, you do not see the irony and hypocrisy of your statements.

Some questions asked for a specific verses that are not relevant.

You need to seek wisdom, brother, not argument.

amen…

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The reason we have the Scriptures is because Christ used the church to determine the NT canon. If not for the Spirit of Christ there would be no Bible. The church was not necessary for the Scriptures to be known (although God used the church) for the NT but not for the OT. He used the Jewish people for that task.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Your church goes far beyond what the scriptures teach.

Much of it can be understood by a person who can read.

Remember your Bible here, brother?

What does the eunuch say in Acts 8 to Philip’s inquiry about understanding Isaiah? “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” (verse 30).

Who instructed you? Were they instructed through the Tradition from the Apostles?

My guess would be no.

Remember: “He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead.” (Acts 10:42).

We are so fortunate to have an infallible interpreter of Scripture here! Welcome justasking4it!

Robert

 

[Good_Fella]

Not my opinion but its Scripture. There is no such scripture to support the idea she was some kind of ark type.

You continue to ignore the parallel Luke draws between Mary and the Ark, which has been pointed out to you many times. It seems to me you’re in a state of denial. What you say is only your wrong opinion. And you are mistaken to imagine that by perceiving and recognizing Mary’s part in the economy of salvation God’s glory is somehow diminished. On the contrary, God is glorified.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Remember your Bible here, brother?

We are so fortunate to have an infallible interpreter of Scripture here! Welcome justasking4it!

Robert

We certainly are. What would be the point of Jesus sending the Paraclete if we had no infallible interpreter of Scripture with regard to Church doctrine? How could we know with certainty whether we got all our doctrines right in accord with Scripture? In the Protestant tradition countless denominations and splinter groups fail to totally agree on essential doctrines because they fail to recognize what JA4 infallibly has to decree. Meanwhile, each Protestant community rejects the belief that man can infallibly interpret Scripture without the aid of the Paraclete. And each group believes that the Paraclete is with them, sent by Jesus 1500 years or more after Jesus had promised to send the Helper to his apostles.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NotWorthy]

Is there some kind of offical church document that says Mary is some kind of ark type?

No, because the Church hasn’t felt the need to bind this teaching on us.

Let me ask you something JA4.

Are you asserting that:

A) the Similarities between the dialog in 2nd Samuel (where the Ark is brought to the foothills of Judah for 3 months) and Luke (where Mary visits Elizabeth in the foothills of Judah for 3 months).

B) The Greek word for 'overshadow" (*episkiazein) *is used to describe the Holy Spirit and Mary in Luke and the Holy Spirit and the Ark in Exodus 40 as well as the Holy Spirit and the Ark in Solomon’s Temple in 2 Chronicles 7. This Greek word is rarely used in the Old Testament:

C) In John’s Revelation, the Ark in the Temple of God in Heaven is immediately replaced by a woman who gives birth to Jesus:

Your assertion is that all of this is coincidence?

 

[NotWorthy]

Where do we find the inspired-inerrant Word of God if not the Scriptures? Because of this, there is no other binding teaching on the Christian. Nothing has greater authortity than the scriptures; no man, church etc can be greater than the Scriptures.

Then why don’t you follow the teachings of Scripture, for Scriptures claim that the Church is the ultimate authority on earth. No where does Scripture claim to be so authoritive.

 

[NotWorthy]

Your church goes far beyond what the scriptures teach.

The reason we have the Scriptures is because Christ used the church to determine the NT canon. If not for the Spirit of Christ there would be no Bible. The church was not necessary for the Scriptures to be known (although God used the church) for the NT but not for the OT. He used the Jewish people for that task.

Much of it can be understood by a person who can read.

JA4, can I ask you, Since Scriptures are the ultimate authority, does one need to read the entire Bible before they can determine what is right or wrong?

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, my rantings on this thread are done (for now, of course, it seems I’ve finally caught up), but what happens when Sola Scriptura becomes a theology?

Let’s look at the fruits of the Protest Revolt.

The Revolters all agreed that the Scriptures are all that is necessary (like JA4, here) to learn about the Truths of Salvation, and within just a few years, they were all split on what those truths are. These splits then themselves became splits.

It reminds of those old films in science that describes nuclear fission. You place 1000’s of ping pong balls mounted on mousetraps in a room. Then you throw a ping pong ball in the room (This would be the Protestant Revolt in the 15th century) and all the ping pong balls start rocketing through the room causing more and more ping pong balls to launch.

In the meantime there is a ping pong ball in the corner that remains unchanged. Guess which Church that would be.

 

[guanophore]

:dancing: :hypno:

Am I to glean from this response that you find delight in rule breaking and disrespect to others?

nice try but Luke never says such a thing…

He does, but you cannot see it because you have your anti-Catholic blinders on. We tried to get you to at least role play, so you could understand how we see it,but you could not.

Your church

I think you use phrases such as this as a means of sowing dissention. It shows that you don’t recognize that there is only one church, with only one Head, and that all who are members of Christ are members of the One Body. In doing so, you tear at the Body of Christ destructively. It seems that you believe you have been appointed by God to uproot the tares that are growing in the field.

goes far beyond what the scriptures teach.

Actually, Jesus and the Apostles went beyond what the scriptures teach. This does not in any way subtract from the importance and authority of scripture. It just means that scripture is not all. Could Mary have sinned? She is created just like Eve, and Eve (without orignial sin) chose to sin, so I think, yes.

The reason we have the Scriptures is because Christ used the church to determine the NT canon. If not for the Spirit of Christ there would be no Bible. The church was not necessary for the Scriptures to be known (although God used the church) for the NT but not for the OT. He used the Jewish people for that task.

Your family history still needs some study. You are still off topic in the thread.

Much of it can be understood by a person who can read.

Is it not true that the pope and the magisterium are also authorities in the catholic church?

This is so far off topic I cannot respond here. Although you and I have been through a great deal of conflict, I have never reported you. However, your apparent blatant glee over rule breaking and persistent attempts to derail this thread are making me think that this might be the time.

 

[justasking4]

JA4, can I ask you, Since Scriptures are the ultimate authority, does one need to read the entire Bible before they can determine what is right or wrong?

No.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3304159]
Originally Posted by justasking4
nice try but Luke never says such a thing…

guanophore
He does, but you cannot see it because you have your anti-Catholic blinders on. We tried to get you to at least role play, so you could understand how we see it,but you could not.

No so. I don’t have any blinders on. Rather you are reading into the texts your catholic doctrine and trying to make the scriptures say what they do not say.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3304088]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Is there some kind of offical church document that says Mary is some kind of ark type?

NotWorthy;
No, because the Church hasn’t felt the need to bind this teaching on us.
Then how can you say its a catholic teaching at all if it has never defined it as such. Without it you catholics who say such things are really speculating even beyond what the church says.

Let me ask you something JA4.

Are you asserting that:

A) the Similarities between the dialog in 2nd Samuel (where the Ark is brought to the foothills of Judah for 3 months) and Luke (where Mary visits Elizabeth in the foothills of Judah for 3 months).

B) The Greek word for 'overshadow" (*episkiazein) *

is used to describe the Holy Spirit and Mary in Luke and the Holy Spirit and the Ark in Exodus 40 as well as the Holy Spirit and the Ark in Solomon’s Temple in 2 Chronicles 7. This Greek word is rarely used in the Old Testament:

C) In John’s Revelation, the Ark in the Temple of God in Heaven is immediately replaced by a woman who gives birth to Jesus:

Your assertion is that all of this is coincidence?

Absolutely for a number of reasons. No writer of the NT ever makes this connection. Secondly, under this method i could just as easily make all kinds of connections from the OT to the NT about her also. Take for example Jeremiah 44:15-19 and apply to what catholics are doing with Mary. Thirdly, do any fathers of the 2-3rd centuries speak of her like this?

These are just some of the problems you have with this kind of method. Better to stay with the plain reading of Scripture and not make her out to be something the Scriptures never do.

 

[NotWorthy]

No.

So how can you be complete if you do not read the complete truths. How much of the truth do you need to read before you can feel confident that know the truth necessary to get to heaven?

 

[NotWorthy]

Then how can you say its a catholic teaching at all if it has never defined it as such. Without it you catholics who say such things are really speculating even beyond what the church says.

Are you saying the Church invented the teaching of Transubstantiation in the 11th or 12th century? That’s when the Church made it binding, even though it had been taught since the Church’s earliest writings.

The Church typically only makes something binding if it feels there’s too much controversy and it’s causing problems within the Church.

Absolutely for a number of reasons. No writer of the NT ever makes this connection. Secondly, under this method i could just as easily make all kinds of connections from the OT to the NT about her also. Take for example Jeremiah 44:15-19 and apply to what catholics are doing with Mary. Thirdly, do any fathers of the 2-3rd centuries speak of her like this?

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 – 373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the 2nd century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 213 – c. 270) an early Christian teacher wrote: “Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.

    [](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#_ftnref1)Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). *The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325*. Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius The Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

These are just some of the problems you have with this kind of method. Better to stay with the plain reading of Scripture and not make her out to be something the Scriptures never do.

You may have a point if it was the only reference. But there is simply too many coincidences, and even the Early Church Fathers saw these, just as they say the “Mary is the New Eve”.

 

[NotWorthy]

These are just some of the problems you have with this kind of method. Better to stay with the plain reading of Scripture and not make her out to be something the Scriptures never do.

Yeah, John Chapter 6 is so much clearer when you read it in Plain Reading.

Oh yeah, that’s right. You guys don’t do that!

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3304590]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Then how can you say its a catholic teaching at all if it has never defined it as such. Without it you catholics who say such things are really speculating even beyond what the church says.

NotWorthy
Are you saying the Church invented the teaching of Transubstantiation in the 11th or 12th century?

i didn’t say anything about this but its similar. A case can be made about these things in the catholic church is that they start out as speculations and in some cases become dogmas. We are already seeing this happening not only with Mary as an ark type but her being the spouse of the HS. We should not be suprised someday that to is declared dogma. There really is no stopping this kind of thing when you have a church that believes in some kind of development of doctrine over time.

NotWorthy
That’s when the Church made it binding, even though it had been taught since the Church’s earliest writings.

But not the NT though.

The Church typically only makes something binding if it feels there’s too much controversy and it’s causing problems within the Church.

Why should this be necessary? If the scriptures teach something then the church should teach it whether there is controversy or not.

Quote:justasking4
Absolutely for a number of reasons. No writer of the NT ever makes this connection. Secondly, under this method i could just as easily make all kinds of connections from the OT to the NT about her also. Take for example Jeremiah 44:15-19 and apply to what catholics are doing with Mary. Thirdly, do any fathers of the 2-3rd centuries speak of her like this?

NotWorthy
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 – 373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the 2nd century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 213 – c. 270) an early Christian teacher wrote: “Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.[1]

[1]Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius The Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

If these are the earlist mention of this your talking about something that took over 2 centuries to be mentioned. Secondly who is to say these men speak for the entire church and not their own personal views?

Quote:justasking4
These are just some of the problems you have with this kind of method. Better to stay with the plain reading of Scripture and not make her out to be something the Scriptures never do.

NotWorthy
You may have a point if it was the only reference. But there is simply too many coincidences, and even the Early Church Fathers saw these, just as they say the “Mary is the New Eve”.

This kind of thing reminds of the people who years ago were claiming there was some kind of codes in the Bible that meant certain things.
Do you know if modern day catholic scholars interpret the passages you quote as a reference to Mary and the ark?

---

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3304572]
Originally Posted by justasking4
No.

NotWorthy
So how can you be complete if you do not read the complete truths.

The more you know and understand the Scriptures the greater you knowledge of Christ. No one will ever be complete in this world.

How much of the truth do you need to read before you can feel confident that know the truth necessary to get to heaven

There are at least 2 Scriptures passages you need to believe to get to heaven:
Romans 10:9-10 and I Corinthians 15:1-4

 

[justasking4]

Remember your Bible here, brother?

What does the eunuch say in Acts 8 to Philip’s inquiry about understanding Isaiah? “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” (verse 30).

Who instructed you? Were they instructed through the Tradition from the Apostles?

My guess would be no.

Remember: “He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead.” (Acts 10:42).

We are so fortunate to have an infallible interpreter of Scripture here! Welcome justasking4it!

Robert

How many verses has your church infallibly interpreted? I was reading somewhere that it is less than 20. Less than 20 out of the thousands of verses in the Scriptures. Unless the verses we are discussing have been infallibly interpreted by your church then you are in the same boat as a protestant.