If the Bible is a Catholic document, why isn't some Catholic doctrine in it?

[mo3]

Romans 6:23 is talking about all humans. Jesus is the only one who has never sinned. Unborn babies and severely mentally disabled people still have sin in them. All humans are born with natural sin that is inherited from their parents. So even an unborn baby has sinned and would go to hell if Jesus hadn’t died for them. So the “all” in this verse is actually referring to all people.

Actually, the verse "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” is from Romans 3:23 not 6:23.

St. Paul is not talking about “original sin” in Romans 3. He is clearly speaking about “personal sin.” Un-born babies have not committed “personal sin.”

Therefore, “all” does not mean “all” in Romans 3.

If you disagree, please provide the verse that documents his reference to “original sin.”

 

[mo3]

Romans 6:23 is talking about all humans. Jesus is the only one who has never sinned. Unborn babies and severely mentally disabled people still have sin in them. All humans are born with natural sin that is inherited from their parents. So even an unborn baby has sinned and would go to hell if Jesus hadn’t died for them. So the “all” in this verse is actually referring to all people.

Your statement contradicts the Bible that shows Jesus was “fully human” and “fully God.” If Jesus was fully human, then he would have sinned per your interpretation that “all” means all humans.

This interpretation of “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” cannot be valid since Jesus did not sin but he was “fully human.”

 

[angie08]

Actually, the verse "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” is from Romans 3:23 not 6:23.

St. Paul is not talking about “original sin” in Romans 3. He is clearly speaking about “personal sin.” Un-born babies have not committed “personal sin.”

Therefore, “all” does not mean “all” in Romans 3.

If you disagree, please provide the verse that documents his reference to “original sin.”

In this verse, Jesus is not making a distinction between original sin or personal sin; he just said sin because any kind of sin will result in death. I was simply pointing out that all people have sinned because all people have original sin in them. In Genesis 6:5, it says that every inclination of man’s heart was evil. This is a reference to original sin; it’s saying that all men have evil desires which is a sin. Therefore all people have sinned even before they are born.

Even though Jesus is fully human, this verse is not referring to Him because it says we are saved through Him. Just think about it: when you say all people, are you referring to all people on earth or are you including God in heaven? It’s just common sense that when you talk about all people, you’re not referring to Jesus because He is so above us that we aren’t in the same category as Him. Even though He is true man, He is also true God and therefore in a different category than “all people.”

 

[mo3]

In this verse, Jesus is not making a distinction between original sin or personal sin; he just said sin because any kind of sin will result in death."

This verse has context because it is contained in Romans 3. Look at another verse from Romans 3 which shows St Paul is speaking about “personal sin”: Romans 3:20: since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin.

I was simply pointing out that all people have sinned because all people have original sin in them. In Genesis 6:5, it says that every inclination of man’s heart was evil. This is a reference to original sin; it’s saying that all men have evil desires which is a sin. Therefore all people have sinned even before they are born.

This statement is true but it does not show Romans 3 is discussing “original sin.”

Even though Jesus is fully human, this verse is not referring to Him because it says we are saved through Him. Just think about it: when you say all people, are you referring to all people on earth or are you including God in heaven? It’s just common sense that when you talk about all people, you’re not referring to Jesus because He is so above us that we aren’t in the same category as Him. Even though He is true man, He is also true God and therefore in a different category than “all people.”

You are taking Romans 3:23 out of context and adding interpretation that is not contextual. Romans 3:23 does not say “we are saved through him.” You are adding these words to the verse.

Romans 3 is not speaking about “personal sin.” If you read the entire chapter, it is clear. If fact, if one “adds” to the chapter that St. Paul is speaking about both “personal sin” and “original sin”, the entire chapter makes no sense.

PLEASE provide a verse FROM Romans 3 which shows it is referring to “original sin”.

 

[johnnydigit]

The Trinity is taught in the bible. Just because the word trinity isn’t used doesn’t mean the concept isn’t in the bible. In John 1:1, it says that the Word (Jesus) is God. And in Genesis, when God is talking before He created the whole world, He says “we” meaning there was more than one person. However, the Bible is also clear that there is only one God. So from these teachings in the bible, the church came up with a word to describe what was taught in the bible, that there is only one God, but three persons that are separate and distinct.

And no, mormons aren’t Christians because they don’t believe what is clearly taught in the bible about Christ and God.

your church teaches you this. theirs doesn’t. mormons and jehovah’s witnesses will say the opposite. they will show you scripture that proves otherwise, that clearly shows you are wrong. other denominations will do the same, and they will stand by it and say the Holy Spirit guides them to all truth.

 

[angie08]

This verse has context because it is contained in Romans 3. Look at another verse from Romans 3 which shows St Paul is speaking about “personal sin”: Romans 3:20: since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin.

This statement is true but it does not show Romans 3 is discussing “original sin.”

You are taking Romans 3:23 out of context and adding interpretation that is not contextual. Romans 3:23 does not say “we are saved through him.” You are adding these words to the verse.

Romans 3 is not speaking about “personal sin.” If you read the entire chapter, it is clear. If fact, if one “adds” to the chapter that St. Paul is speaking about both “personal sin” and “original sin”, the entire chapter makes no sense.

PLEASE provide a verse FROM Romans 3 which shows it is referring to “original sin”.

I am saying that Romans 3 is talking about all sin. There is nothing that says that he is talking only about personal sin. Romans 3:20 says that no one can observe the law perfectly. That may be referring to personal sin, but if it weren’t for original sin, that would not be true. If there weren’t original sin, then in theory someone could go through life without sinning. But the existence of original sin ensure that every inclination of our hearts is evil.

So no there isn’t a verse in Romans 3 that talks explicitly about original sin. But original and personal sin are so intertwined that they cannot be separated. So Romans 3:23 is talking about all sin.

Romans 3:24 says we are saved through Jesus; it says, “are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” I am not adding words to the chapter. Maybe you should read the whole thing first.

Explain to me why the entire chapter makes no sense if Paul is speaking about both original and personal sin.

 

[angie08]

your church teaches you this. theirs doesn’t. mormons and jehovah’s witnesses will say the opposite. they will show you scripture that proves otherwise, that clearly shows you are wrong. other denominations will do the same, and they will stand by it and say the Holy Spirit guides them to all truth.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses use passages out of context and it can easily be shown that they are taking it out of context. Show me something I have said that was taken out of context of the chapter it was in and in the entire bible. But if you have no examples of when I have done this, then don’t claim that I have.

 

[johnnydigit]

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses use passages out of context and it can easily be shown that they are taking it out of context. Show me something I have said that was taken out of context of the chapter it was in and in the entire bible. But if you have no examples of when I have done this, then don’t claim that I have.

they will say the same about you. so will thousands of others. for all one knows, you can all be wrong even though you are certain you are right. this is what happens when there is no authority. you are your own authority, you are your own god.

 

[po18guy]

they will say the same about you. so will thousands of others. for all one knows, you can all be wrong even though you are certain you are right. this is what happens when there is no authority. you are your own authority, you are your own god.

Without an authority under the direction of the Holy Spirit, there are other spirits ready and waiting to lead! The spirit of antichrist and many many fellows are just waiting for someone to look into themselves for guidance. They get it.

Christ breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, so that they would not be lead astray. Their successors are under the same umbrella. Individuals, such as you and I, can receive direction from any passing spirit. This is not good!

Job 1:6-7 (King James Version) Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

We’re in spiritual war. We live in the Princedom of the evil one.

Christ’s peace.

 

[mo3]

I am saying that Romans 3 is talking about all sin. There is nothing that says that he is talking only about personal sin.

I don’t’ want to present the entire chapter but in Romans 3:7, it talks about the “act” of being a sinner which clearly in not “original sin.” This is not speaking about “personal sin.” It is clear in the following verse which uses the action of “sinner.”

Romans 3:7 But if God’s truth redounds to his glory through my falsehood, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

So no there isn’t a verse in Romans 3 that talks explicitly about original sin.

It is true that it is not “explicitly” but “contextually” is clearly talking about “personal sin” as the verses I have quoted demonstrate.

But original and personal sin are so intertwined that they cannot be separated.

This statement is so off base that it would take an entirely new thread. There is a BIG difference between “personal sin” and “original sin.’

So Romans 3:23 is talking about all sin.

This is simply not true.

Explain to me why the entire chapter makes no sense if Paul is speaking about both original and personal sin.

Here are 2 verses but there are many more in Romans 3:

Romans 3: 27 For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:31: Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law.

There are many verses in Romans 3 that talk about the “law” or “works of the law.” When you speak about the “law”, you are speaking about what “actions” an individual can make in reference to the law. Performing “works” is an “act” or “action.” “Original sin” is not an “act” or “action.”

The entire concept of Romans 3 is about justification and what “actions” we can take or not take. “Original sin” is something we are born with and is not “action.”

Maybe I should start another thread on this subject.

God bless.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Catholic doctrine is easier for those who do not know the teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Church to discern in Vulgate based transaltions of the scriptures than in non Vulgate translations of the scriptures.