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

[justinthemartyr]

by the way, augustine was not correct in everything he stated or taught personally, the Church with her magesterium of bishops in Union with the Pope are the final arbiters of dogmatic teachings. Thank God for the Teaching authority of the church, else wew would be left with our own private interpretation of scripture which causes choas and division within the realms of Christendom as is evident in the past 500 years of private interpretation by those claiming sola scriptura.

 

[sandusky]

justinthemartyr:

The church has spoken, and the church in her dogmatic spectrum holds the exact weight that scripture does, just as Paul stated in 2 thess 2:15 for it is not only hte written tradition of the church but also the oral sacred tradition of the church which you hold in your hand in the form of the Bible which was given to the whole world by this one church, the Body of Christ.

That passage says the traditions “were,” [past tense] delivered at the time of the apostles. That being the case, the earliest of the Fathers taught that Mary was not sinless, but that Mary was a sinner; therefore, IMO, the later developments are not the true tradition.
justinthemartry:

It always comes back to authority, of which you do not have adequate authority without Christ speaking through His one Church He instituted upon cephas.

And there has always been a universal agreement within Christendom with respect to that; hasn’t there?

justinthemartyr:

as far as infants are concerned, I specifically stated that i was speaking of infants who have no ability to reason.

And you still offer no proof with respect to that assertion, and have not answered whether or not Augustine believed that infants sin; correct?

justinthemartyr:

by the way, augustine was not correct in everything he stated or taught personally…

Of course he wasn’t; but the apostles were, and when it is said by apostolic testimony that all have sinned, that’s what I’m believing, along with Augustine.

 

[justinthemartyr]

That passage says the traditions “were,” [past tense] delivered at the time of the apostles. That being the case, the earliest of the Fathers taught that Mary was not sinless, but that Mary was a sinner; therefore, IMO, the later developments are not the true tradition.

And there has always been a universal agreement within Christendom with respect to that; hasn’t there?

And you still offer no proof, and have not answered whether or not Augustine believed that infants sin; correct?

Of course he wasn’t; but the apostles were, and when it is said by apostolic testimony that all have sinned, that’s what I’m believing.

that is your private interpretation of scripture as to whether this was meaning past as in only previous writings. does that then mean that anything after 2 thess was written is not of God? wouldn’t that be the majority of the nT scriptures and the canon of scripture itself? yes, it would. therefore you are wrong in your interpretation.

 

[sandusky]

that is your private interpretation of scripture as to whether this was meaning past as in only previous writings. does that then mean that anything after 2 thess was written is not of God? wouldn’t that be the majority of the nT scriptures and the canon of scripture itself? yes, it would. therefore you are wrong in your interpretation.

The claim is that the tradition mentioned in that passage is
oral tradition. (And all of your interpretation of scripture is private interpretation as well).

 

[mgrfin]

Jesus asserts in Jn 5:39, that the scriptures testify about Him, not Mary, not anyone else, but Christ. You’d do well to endeavor to understand that, IMO.

.
It was Mary who testified about Jesus: My soul doeth magnify the Lord, and my spirit had rejoiced in God, my Saviour" Luke: 1:46.

And to those who claimed some said Mary was proud: the Scriptures contradict: “Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid, for behold all generations shall called me holy. Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me, and holy is his name.”

And this testimony of Scripture:
“And Elizabeth cried out with a loud voice, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” Luke 1: 42.

“Flights of fancy”? I think not. Who else in the Scriptures is called ‘holy’? Who else in Scripture is promised that all generations will call her holy? Who else in Scripture has the highest of all titles: Mary, the Mother of God.

Meditating on these Scriptures, the Church is only reciting in its praise and proclaimations of Mary’s sinlessness, what Scripture itself says.

I guess the Eucharist is also a fiction to you, Sandusky. You will not believe what the Word of God says, regardless of how highly you say you value the Scriptures. You value only what you as a poor human will interprete.

The fulness of faith has been given to His Church through the Written and Unwritten Word of God, and it is this Church who has the authority to interprete Divine Revelation.

The flights of fancy belongs to the naysayers, hoping that for all these years they have not been wrong.

peace

 

[JMMK]

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that its backwards. Everything in scripture is true. But that doesn’t not imply that everything not in scripture is not true.

We live in the information age. A no-name blogger sneezes and someone can find out. Not every single detail of Christ’s life was detailed in the Gospels.

Case in point is the final line of one of the Gospels where, after His ressurection and before his Ascension, He performed many other signs but they are not recorded within. (I don’t keep my bible at work so pardon my incompleteness.)

Individual interpretation of Scripture is also flawed. With that you can come to several different conclusions, yet the Christ said that he was the Way, the Light and the Truth. If he is the Word, ergo Truth, incarnate, how can it be duplicitous.

 

[Ginger2]

PPlease tell me how an infant can sin, a mentally retarded person can sin?

Being a sinner and sinning are two different things.

We are ALL born in a fallen state - Original sin:

Galatians 3:15 22
But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.

But not everyone has committed a sinful act.

 

[Ginger2]

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that its backwards. Everything in scripture is true. But that doesn’t not imply that everything not in scripture is not true.

No one claims all knowledge and truth are in the Bible.

Only that we should not claim absolute proof apart from Scriptures.

What we know for certain and all we **need **to know, is in the Scriptures.

If it is not written in Scriptures I am not required to believe it, but as long as it does not contradict Scriptures it’s OK to think it might be. true.

The danger with thinking we know something that no one else knows is demonstrated with the JWs. They think they have discovered the name of God!!! The Scriptures clearly state no one knows His name. And look where its gotten them…

 

[mgrfin]

The claim is that the tradition mentioned in that passage is
oral tradition. (And all of your interpretation of scripture is private interpretation as well).

If your father told you of the life of your grandparents, by the fact that such was oral means that it is not true?

Your interpretation of scripture is private interpretation. You have no more inspiration than the rest of mankind, unless you are part of the christian band that claims that God speaks to them.

It is easy to destroy belief in Scripture by saying that what you have in your hand is not the original word of God. You have no assurance that God inspired it, or that the authorship is who say it is.

As for translation, and interpretation, you are in the land of Babylon. You pick and chose what you want to believe the Scripture says, for example, regarding the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the founding of the Church, the Trinity, salvation through grace.

Don’t knock oral tradition, it is an essential part of Divine Revelation.

peace

 

[sandusky]

“Flights of fancy”? I think not. Who else in the Scriptures is called ‘holy’? Who else in Scripture is promised that all generations will call her holy?

”Blessed,” not “holy;” Will count me “blessed,” Gk makaridzo (same as in the beatitudes Mt 5:3ff), not “holy,” Gk hagios, as the reference to God in v49. (Although, FYI, hagios is one of the terms the NT uses to describe all believers).

See also the translation of your approved Catholic Bible the D-R, here.

 

[sandusky]

If your father told you of the life of your grandparents, by the fact that such was oral means that it is not true?

Your interpretation of scripture is private interpretation. You have no more inspiration than the rest of mankind, unless you are part of the christian band that claims that God speaks to them.

It is easy to destroy belief in Scripture by saying that what you have in your hand is not the original word of God. You have no assurance that God inspired it, or that the authorship is who say it is.

As for translation, and interpretation, you are in the land of Babylon. You pick and chose what you want to believe the Scripture says, for example, regarding the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the founding of the Church, the Trinity, salvation through grace.

Don’t knock oral tradition, it is an essential part of Divine Revelation.

peace

You are an amusing fellow, mgrfin.

 

[mgrfin]

You are an amusing fellow, mgrfin.

I guess that is the best you can do. Who ever told you I was a 'fellow"?

peace

 

[JMMK]

What we know for certain and all we **need **to know, is in the Scriptures.

Then why in the desert did Jesus say that “Man does not live on bread alone but on everyword from the Mouth of God.”

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

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

 

[mgrfin]

Is this a feeling that you have? You offer no proof, just your opinion/feelings.

Augustine said that infants sin; didn’t he?

The topic switch; you’re running out of steam.

You are running out answers, Sandusky.

Augustine was not infallible, but where did he say that infants sin.
DO YOU HAVE A CITATION, or is this just another one of your ‘he said, she said’?

You throw all these things out, without meaning and context. Kind of like the Leo I statement. Maybe Augustine was saying infants share in the sin of our first parents.

Infants are not capable of personal sin. They have an immature intellect, and not capable of reason, or free will.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

”Blessed,” not “holy;” Will count me “blessed,” Gk makaridzo (same as in the beatitudes Mt 5:3ff), not “holy,” Gk hagios, as the reference to God in v49. (Although, FYI, hagios is one of the terms the NT uses to describe all believers).

See also the translation of your approved Catholic Bible the D-R, here.

You are correct about the D-R. I use it primarily as my point of reference.

Is there a difference between ‘holy’ and ‘blessed’? We say, interchangably, “Holy Trinity” and “Blessed Trinity”.

“Blessed” is someone worthy of reverence, adoration, worship. (Webster). “Holy” is saintly, pious, devout. (Webster)

Actually, ‘blessed’, which is the word you are insisting on, is a stronger word.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Then why in the desert did Jesus say that “Man does not live on bread alone but on everyword from the Mouth of God.”

What are you suggesting?

Scriptures clearly state that some things will not be known to men until Jesus returns.

AND that the things we do know of God are reveal to us by God - alone. Not Church Doctors.

1Cr 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Flesh and blood cannot reveal Spiritual things - only God can reveal these things to us.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Men cannot explain the Gospel to men unless God opens their minds to understand.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

 

[sandusky]

You are running out answers, Sandusky.

Augustine was not infallible, but where did he say that infants sin.
DO YOU HAVE A CITATION, or is this just another one of your ‘he said, she said’?

You throw all these things out, without meaning and context. Kind of like the Leo I statement. Maybe Augustine was saying infants share in the sin of our first parents.

Infants are not capable of personal sin. They have an immature intellect, and not capable of reason, or free will.

peace

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

 

[sandusky]

You are correct about the D-R. I use it primarily as my point of reference.

Is there a difference between ‘holy’ and ‘blessed’? We say, interchangably, “Holy Trinity” and “Blessed Trinity”.

“Blessed” is someone worthy of reverence, adoration, worship. (Webster). “Holy” is saintly, pious, devout. (Webster)

Actually, ‘blessed’, which is the word you are insisting on, is a stronger word.

peace

Webster?

 

[Ginger2]

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

It’s just his nature to be sarcastic.

 

[justinthemartyr]

But as was stated previously, augustine is not the end all of decisions on faith and morals. The church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. 1 tim 3:15.