Do you consider this a "proof" text against Mary's sinlessness

[sandusky]

How very Christian of you.

Real Christians have senses of humor.

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger2
What we know for certain and all we need to know, is in the Scriptures.
JMMK
Then why in the desert did Jesus say that “Man does not live on bread alone but on everyword from the Mouth of God.”

That which proceeds out of the mouth of God is Scripture.

JMMK
After the apostles wrote their letters did God stop talking to the world? At least until St. John recorded his Revelations that is.

He did in terms of Scripture when the last apostle died.

Remember, the canon lists, whether you accept the full catholic or not, are nothing if not tradition.

Tradition does not make the Scriptures inspired-inerrant. They are inspired because they have their source in God Himself.

 

[justinthemartyr]

so then most of what Christ said and did is not recorded IN scripture, are you claiming that all of that is irrelevent?

that would mean that the Bible is irrelevnt then, because we wouldn’t have it if it were not for the Catholic Church writing the NT, protecting it and studying it and then canonizing it in 382ad.

the greatest form of Sacred Tradition we have

 

[justasking4]

justinthemartyr;3098078]so then most of what Christ said and did is not recorded IN scripture, are you claiming that all of that is irrelevent?

Although the scriptures do claim Jesus said and did other things not recorded that does not help us in the least for the mere fact we don’t know what this was.

that would mean that the Bible is irrelevnt then, because we wouldn’t have it if it were not for the Catholic Church writing the NT, protecting it and studying it and then canonizing it in 382ad.

the greatest form of Sacred Tradition we have

Not so. The Scriptures have their source in God Himself and He used the church to discover and bring forth the NT canon. No church can boast before God about the canon since it was His Spirit guiding the church to which books were to be in the canon.

 

[Ginger2]

so then most of what Christ said and did is not recorded IN scripture, are you claiming that all of that is irrelevent?

Name one thing that Tradition teaches that Christ said or did, that is not recorded in Scripture. If you manage to come up with anything, I have a follow-up question.

Now I’m going to sign off. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a long time.

 

[justinthemartyr]

true, there is no need to boast. God made it abundantly evident that it took His one church, and none other on this earth, to bring forth the Canon of the OT and the NT scriptures.

It is also clear that they taught through mostly word of mouth during this time, and most of which was from Sacred Tradition.

The Scriptures being the greatest Sacred Tradition of all Sacred Tradition.

You cannot deny that the canon of Scripture is Sacred Tradition, for
there is no list of the books which belong in the bible within the pages of scripture itself. It took the one Church Christ instituted upon cephas to bring forth this by the power of God,. The fact that the scriptures are the Word of God in no way reduces the importance of the Sacred Tradition which brought them to the world.

God does everything for a particular purpose. He could have just said it, and the canon would have been there POOF!

But He did not, He chose to utilize this His authority in the realms of His Church which is authoritative and legislative, scripturally.

 

[justasking4]

justinthemartyr;3098121]true, there is no need to boast. God made it abundantly evident that it took His one church, and none other on this earth, to bring forth the Canon of the OT and the NT scriptures.

The Jews were the ones who already had the OT canon in place before the church came into being.

It is also clear that they taught through mostly word of mouth during this time, and most of which was from Sacred Tradition.

It is true that there was a time in which Scripture was in “oral” form.

The Scriptures being the greatest Sacred Tradition of all Sacred Tradition.

What is your definition of Sacred Tradition?

You cannot deny that the canon of Scripture is Sacred Tradition, for
there is no list of the books which belong in the bible within the pages of scripture itself.

Why would there need to be one if each book had to stand on its own merits to be considered inspired-inerrant?

It took the one Church Christ instituted upon cephas to bring forth this by the power of God,. The fact that the scriptures are the Word of God in no way reduces the importance of the Sacred Tradition which brought them to the world.

God does everything for a particular purpose. He could have just said it, and the canon would have been there POOF!

But He did not, He chose to utilize this His authority in the realms of His Church which is authoritative and legislative, scripturally.

 

[mgrfin]

Wrong mgrfin.

You misinterpreted or cited the wrong post

Post 138

Quote:
Augustine said that infants sin; didn’t he?
Unquote

And he followed with this unchristian comment:
Post 157

Quote:
Your attitude is awful; you’ll find it in his confessions. Now, go hunt it down.
Unquote

Ginger, I accept your apology when you are ready, and please stop making personal attacks on me, in other posts.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Name one thing that Tradition teaches that Christ said or did, that is not recorded in Scripture. If you manage to come up with anything, I have a follow-up question.

Now I’m going to sign off. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a long time.

Ginger,

You misunderstand the place and purpose of Tradition.

Let us take the Eucharist. I don’t know what you believe about the Eucharist, but I am sure you don’t believe what we believe about the Eucharist.

But you don’t have the Eucharist, as it is in Scripture. I don’t know how you interprete passages relating to the Last Supper, but you don’t believe the Eucharist is the Real Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour, substantially and really present in the Eucharist.

Enter Tradition.

You don’t have the Sacrifice of the Mass in your beliefs, but it is in Scripture.

Enter Tradition.

Tradition explains to us what is in Scripture, The Trinity, the Incarnation, Salvation by Grace, The Sinlessness of Mary, the Assumption of the BVM, Original sin, mortal sin, Actual Grace, Sanctifying Grace, The Sacraments, the Papacy, the foundation of the Church, and on and on it goes. Your dogmas are just mere shadows of what is taught by the Catholic Church, regardless of being in scripture.

I don’t know what your game is, something like saying we believe the same doctrines, but differently. Yes, differently, and heretically so, your heresy.

I didn’t want you to wait too long. Sorry, I didn’t want to play your ‘gotcha’ games.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Post 138
Ginger, I accept your apology when you are ready, and please stop making personal attacks on me, in other posts.

He stated in the form of a question that AUGUSTINE said babies are sinners.

Where does Sandusky say that he believes babies can commit personal sin as you accused him?

Being a sinner and committing a sinful act, are not the same thing, mgrfin.

We are all born with the stain of original sin, so even babies are sinners. But not everyone is guilty of a committing a sinful act, like robbing a bank or telling a lie, like babies.

You were wrong about what Sandusky said. Unless there is something you are not telling me, maybe you should consider apologizing to Sundusky. (Like that will ever happen )

 

[mgrfin]

He stated in the form of a question that AUGUSTINE said babies are sinners.

Where does Sandusky say that he believes babies can commit personal sin as you accused him?

Being a sinner and committing a sinful act, are not the same thing, mgrfin.

We are all born with the stain of original sin, so even babies are sinners. But not everyone is guilty of a committing a sinful act, like robbing a bank or telling a lie, like babies.

You were wrong about what Sandusky said. Unless there is something you are not telling me, maybe you should consider apologizing to Sundusky. (Like that will ever happen

Ginger,

You are spouting Catholic doctrine at me. It is something I know extremely well. As a matter of fact, what you are saying is unknowned in your christian belief. They don’t have ‘original’ sin and personal sin so defined.

Stop covering for him. Why would I believe that he was saying what we believed. I even posited to him that Augustine must have been referring to original sin, and not personal sin.

You are both copping out.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

… you don’t have the Eucharist,

You don’t know what you are talking about. Nothing can separate me from Jesus - not even you.

… you don’t believe the Eucharist is the Real Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour, substantially and really present in the Eucharist.

I believe that it is both symbolic and literal, both physical and spiritual. I wish you could refrain from telling me I don’t believe things that I do believe and vice versa.
.

… and heretically so, your heresy.

I thought that was against the forum rules, but you have said that and worse to me so many times, I’m begin to think the forum rules only apply to non-Catholics.

…Sorry, I didn’t want to play your ‘gotcha’ games.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, what you are saying is unknowned in your christian belief.

Stop please! I can’t take anymore.


If it is unknown to me, than how in the world do i know it? You have proved over and over again that you are clueless as to what I believe. And when I tell you, you say, “That’s not what you believe.”



I think I know what I believe, mgrfin.

Stop covering for him. .

I don’t know what Sandusky meant. I wasn’t following the dialog. What I do know is you were not able to give me the post number for what you claimed he said.

I even posited to him that Augustine must have been referring to original sin, and not personal sin.

Post # please…

 

[mgrfin]

There is no reason for any of us to play martyrs, Ginger. Forum Rules apply to everyone.

What is more important is that you have now taken this thread way off base, for about the hundreth time. What did your question have to do with the question in the thread?

Seeing your answer, I realize, absolute nothing.

Try to get it back on track. Please stop asking me post numbers for Sandusky. More wanderings off thread.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Stop please! I can’t take anymore.


If it is unknown to me, than how in the world do i know it? You have proved over and over again that you are clueless as to what I believe. And when I tell you, you say, “That’s not what you believe.”



I think I know what I believe, mgrfin.

I don’t know what Sandusky meant. I wasn’t following the dialog. What I do know is you were not able to give me the post number for what you claimed he said.

Post # please…

Definitely off-thread.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Definitely off-thread.

If I am off topic by answering your questions to me…

then your questions must have been off topic. Please take more care to keep questions in line with the topic of the thread, and I return will avoid answering off topic questions from you.

I sicerely hope everyone else will follow suit.

 

[Ginger2]

justinthemartyr:

…so then most of what Christ said and did is not recorded IN scripture, are you claiming that all of that is irrelevent?

I believe this comment is intended to support the lack of Scriptural evidence for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

This raises an interesting question, but first name one thing Tradition teaches Christ said or did, that is not recorded in Scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I believe this comment is intended to support the lack of Scriptural evidence for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

This raises an interesting question, but first name one thing Tradition teaches Christ said or did, that is not recorded in Scripture.

There is no Scriptural evidence to prove that Mary sin. In fact, can you show me in Scripture where Mary actually committed actual sin, or personal sin?

 

[mgrfin]

I believe this comment is intended to support the lack of Scriptural evidence for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

This raises an interesting question, but first name one thing Tradition teaches Christ said or did, that is not recorded in Scripture.

Sure, Ginger, that is easy, although I think your question is off-thread.

John 21: 25: “But there is also many other things which Jesus did; which,l if they were written every one, the world itself, I think would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

This is in Scripture itself. It is greater in weight than naming anything that is in Tradition that is not in Scripture. As I pointed out you misunderstand Tradition, and you don’t believe what the Church teaches in its Unwritten Revealed Word of God, as well as things that are explicitly stated in Scripture itself. But that is another topic.

You have a great day!

Peace

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sure, Ginger, that is easy, although I think your question is off-thread.

John 21: 25: “But there is also many other things which Jesus did; which,l if they were written every one, the world itself, I think would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

This is in Scripture itself. It is greater in weight than naming anything that is in Tradition that is not in Scripture. As I pointed out you misunderstand Tradition, and you don’t believe what the Church teaches in its Unwritten Revealed Word of God, as well as things that are explicitly stated in Scripture itself. But that is another topic.

You have a great day!

Peace

Well said.