C
ConallCernach
Guest
Good plan. =DI’ll stick with the Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, as Scripture tells us.
Good plan. =DI’ll stick with the Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, as Scripture tells us.
quote]
quote]quote=PO18guy;4249172]…full of grace means empty of sin]
That sure is an arbitrary statement. Not even close in the Greek.
[Rev.12:1 John sees Mary in heaven.]
Another arbitrary & uninformed statement. In prophecy a woman is a church, not a real woman, 2 Cor.11: Rev.18:3; Jer. 6:2. There are many more besides these. Besides that, the woman in Rev.12:1 is in travail at birth, pain, which goes against the teaching of one of your own popes, Pope Alexander 111 that stated,“Mary gave birth to her Son without pain”. Which is another arbitrary statement. According to Pope Pius X11, on the bodily assumption of Mary, he comments,“Often there are theologians & preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy fathers, have been RATHER FREE in their use of events & expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption”. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the 6th to 8th centuries from the following, St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem & others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart.,1,iv) mentions it first. He lived in the 6th century.
Some may ask what this has to do with the sinlesness of Mary. Everything, since it comes from mans mind & not from Scripture. Please don’t start with tradition. I am well aware of your stance on tradition above Scripture. That means nothing to me. That is your system of belief, not mine. I respect that. Just disagree.
SSeason;4247047 said:[Jesus not in sinful flesh]
Wrong theology. I could give a vey long & thorough Bible study on this, but not to irritate my brothers & sisters too much, please read the following, the word for flesh in the Greek is ,'sarx"-human nature with its frailties, physically, morally, carnal flesh, human being." Rom. 8:3; Heb.4:15; Phill.2:5-8; Heb. 2:11,14-18; Gal.4:4,5. Please understand, even in this flesh, He condemned sin in it, Rom.8:3. He was the ONLY sinless one. When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moses at the burning bush,‘Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground’ Ex.3;5. There is a huge difference between hereditary tendencies & cultivated tendencies. He did not have the propensities OF sin, because He never sinned. Enough of this subject.
They can do this one of two ways, by becoming Catholics by abandoning their schism, or they can abandon the Church to the point of atheism. I can’t see much of a middle ground.
Consequently, we too receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church, if we are joined together by charity, if we rejoice in the Catholic name and faith. Let us believe, brethren; as much as every man loves the Church of Christ, so much has he the Holy Spirit.Apparently, we must also trust the Lord in these matters. Come, Holy Spirit!
The Catholic doctrine if the nature of Mary comes to us from the Apostles, and cannot be definitively proved from scripture.[Angel Gabriel implies…greeting Hail full of grace
Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t th CC use this phrase from Gabriel in the Catholic doctrine, the Assumption of Mary? Even if this phrase is used for argument in the sinlessness of Mary, shouldn’t it be used for all believers as stated in Ephesians 1:6 since the exact same Greek term (charitoo) is used in both instances? Can’t have one without the other.
Quote=OneNow1. YUP ! It’s either what Gail says or, you don’t believe Jesus, and twist His words with some of St.Pauls Epistles, as St.Peter said in: 2 Peter 16.Dear Justasking - You state:" Originally Posted by justasking4
Why does the Catholic church baptize its babies?" Short answer - because God said so, so we do so.
Did you make sure the children raised in your house received this gift from God? Or have you witheld it like a self-justified sandhedrin member all this years of your protestant revolt?
Peace,
Gail
Again you sow the seeds of confusion. The apostles never taught such a thing about Mary.guanophore;4254376]The Catholic doctrine if the nature of Mary comes to us from the Apostles, and cannot be definitively proved from scripture.
Would it not be better to say this is an opinion with any facts to back it up with?Yes, when we are washed in baptism, we are full of grace, just as Mary was. What is different in the way she was created, as were Adam and Eve, is that they had no concupiscense (tendency to sin) that Paul writes is the nature of fallen man in Rom. 7.
And how in the world would you claim to know this? Were you there? The Church was there, and she knows what the apostles taught, what they received from God.Again you sow the seeds of confusion. The apostles never taught such a thing about Mary.
I simply cannot understand why you so terribly wanted Jesus born of a sinful virgin. You’re promoting an idea of a hopelessly “sinful humanity” - and God can do nothing about that!God tells us in His written word that Jesus was born of a virgin, He didn’t tell us a sinless virgin.
.
VociMike;4255076]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Again you sow the seeds of confusion. The apostles never taught such a thing about Mary.
The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.VociMike
And how in the world would you claim to know this? Were you there? The Church was there, and she knows what the apostles taught, what they received from God.
Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?And is there anything on earth more bitterly ironic than a Protestant making accusations about sowing seeds of confusion? Protestantism is confusion - growing, spreading, unending confusion.
Actually we have fragments of writings from the Gospel of Peter, this isn’t canonical because of how little we have I believe. There are also manuscripts which we simply do not have. I suggest reading up on Q. This is would an excellent example of one such manuscript that would have be a good candidate for the canon.The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.
Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?
What is important is the truth and the truth is that Mary was not sinless for the mere fact the Scriptures never make such a claim for her. Certaintly she was “highly favored” in her role as the mother of Jesus but such a role does not require her to be without sin or that Mary did not have her own children by Joseph. This is certainly the potrait the Scriptures present to us.I simply cannot understand why you so terribly wanted Jesus born of a sinful virgin. You’re promoting an idea of a hopelessly “sinful humanity” - and God can do nothing about that!
The “Q” document does not really exist but is used by scholars as a hypothetical theory to explain certain features of the Gospel accounts.ConallCernach;4255329]Actually we have fragments of writings from the Gospel of Peter, this isn’t canonical because of how little we have I believe. There are also manuscripts which we simply do not have. I suggest reading up on Q. This is would an excellent example of one such manuscript that would have be a good candidate for the canon.
Other things were suggested for the canon because of their teaching importance, like I Clement and the Letters to Antioch.
You clearly still don’t get it. You toss out these statements as if you actually had anything to back them up. How in the wide word do you claim to know what the Church does and does not have from the apostles? Like I asked before, were you there? Because the Church was there.The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.
Any individual can sow confusion. But the Catholic Church cannot sow confusion because she is the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestantism is not the Church founded by Christ, and is in fundamental opposition to that Church, and thus as a movement sows confusion and has been doing so for 500 years, and the confusion grows ever and ever greater as Protestantism rejects ever more of the truth that she inherited from the Church.Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?
Do you believe God was born of a sinful virgin?What is important is the truth and the truth is that Mary was not sinless for the mere fact the Scriptures never make such a claim for her. Certaintly she was “highly favored” in her role as the mother of Jesus but such a role does not require her to be without sin or that Mary did not have her own children by Joseph. This is certainly the potrait the Scriptures present to us.
If you are going to claim something is of the apostles that is not recorded in the NT then it is up to you to show exactly what this is. Do you know of something that the apostles specifically taught that is not recorded in the NT?VociMike;4255368]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.
VociMike
You clearly still don’t get it. You toss out these statements as if you actually had anything to back them up. How in the wide word do you claim to know what the Church does and does not have from the apostles? Like I asked before, were you there? Because the Church was there.
The Catholic church of today is not identical to the church of the NT. The Catholic church of today has doctrines and practices that the NT did not have.Quote: justasking4
Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?
VociMike
Any individual can sow confusion. But the Catholic Church cannot sow confusion because she is the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.
One of the problems with your statement is that it cannot be supported by its doctrines and practices.Take this topic of Mary being sinless. The NT did not teach such a doctrine about Mary for the mere fact it states all men are born in sin. See Romans 5:12 for example. The NT never makes an exception for Mary.Protestantism is not the Church founded by Christ, and is in fundamental opposition to that Church, and thus as a movement sows confusion and has been doing so for 500 years, and the confusion grows ever and ever greater as Protestantism rejects ever more of the truth that she inherited from the Church.
Yes because she was conceived of 2 human beings. Anyone conceived of in this way inherits the sin of Adam.Do you believe God was born of a sinful virgin?
Just wondering.