O
onenow1
Guest
=OneNow1, How do you know she was born of two human beings
does scripture tell us this ?
For God all things are possible !
Peace, OneNow1
I'm getting tired of hearing from Protestants that we worship Mary and the saints!
- Status
does scripture tell us this ?
For God all things are possible !
Peace, OneNow1
R
reteeks21
Guest
Ah. I gotcha now. Do you mind saying who the dude was that you mentioned at the end? Good points, by the way.I don’t necessarily think you are wrong in thinking what you did… but I think you may have taken it a step or three too far.
I am referring to an “American Taliban” of very, very extremist people who want to invoke sharia like laws in this country based upon solely their “religious viewpoints”…and yes some of those viewpoints are far more radical and dangerous than you would imagine.
Keep in mind…no-one in Afghanistan could have ever saw coming what happened there, nor did the Germans pre 1933, or the Russians when the revolution there began, nor could the Cambodians ever have seen the outcome of the Khmer Rouge’s rule and the killing fields…
Years ago… I was at a “social gathering” and a sharp dressed man with a slick line and a commanding personality was playing to an audience…about what should and would one day happen in this country…this was almost 30 years ago…and sadly I have seen some of what he foretold come to pass. Its scary, and it was very seditious in nature. This man actually stood with people and discussed sedition and overthrow of the US Government in order to impose “their right to impose biblical standards” on the US.
Needless to say, I distanced myself as far as I could from those people in a hurry.
Interestingly enough…the “speaker” was later “indicted” for securities fraud and other crimes…
S
SIA
Guest
It would have been such a historical unprecidented event in history that it would have almost assuredly been recorded in Scripture. It wasn’t.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, you know, we do think that it was ‘recorded in Scripture’. . .by St. Luke. . .
And we also think that not every teaching of Christ is 'recorded in Scripture" but that some teachings were carried on through oral teaching. . .this being one of them.
After all, the concept of the Trinity being three Divine Persons in One God --Father, Son and Spirit coequal–is not explicitly found in Scripture.
There are implicit bits. . .one can make a case for prefiguring in the Old Testament. . .but there is absolutely no Scripture that specifically defines the Trinity as we understand it.
Likewise there is a prefiguring of Mary being conceived without sin in the Old Testament. . .and there is the greeting of the angel in describing her as "Full of Grace’. . .
Like the Trinity, the oral teaching (which one can see in the various writing of the Church Fathers) --which never contradicts Scripture- in combination with Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit ‘leads us to all Truth’.
If “all truth” were to be found ‘only’ in Scripture. . .then what would the Spirit ‘lead us to?’ and for many centuries, how could He lead any but the tiniest fraction of men as most could not read?
And we also think that not every teaching of Christ is 'recorded in Scripture" but that some teachings were carried on through oral teaching. . .this being one of them.
After all, the concept of the Trinity being three Divine Persons in One God --Father, Son and Spirit coequal–is not explicitly found in Scripture.
There are implicit bits. . .one can make a case for prefiguring in the Old Testament. . .but there is absolutely no Scripture that specifically defines the Trinity as we understand it.
Likewise there is a prefiguring of Mary being conceived without sin in the Old Testament. . .and there is the greeting of the angel in describing her as "Full of Grace’. . .
Like the Trinity, the oral teaching (which one can see in the various writing of the Church Fathers) --which never contradicts Scripture- in combination with Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit ‘leads us to all Truth’.
If “all truth” were to be found ‘only’ in Scripture. . .then what would the Spirit ‘lead us to?’ and for many centuries, how could He lead any but the tiniest fraction of men as most could not read?
S
SIA
Guest
He leads us in the understanding of Scripture.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Actually, oral teachings are not a can of worms. . .and ‘anything’ cannot be an oral teaching. Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity are extremely well documented and ‘traceable’. I don’t know if you could give me an example of a putative ‘oral teaching’ that could be ‘just anything’ that would stand up to the documentation of the Church. As I see it, the main difficulty you have is accepting the authority of the Church to speak regarding not only Sacred Tradition but of Scripture itself. And you do know that even the ‘first’ Protestants devoutly accepted and believed in Mary’s sinlessness and virginity. . .you see, to me, were I considering a protestant creed, what would stop me every time would be seeing that Catholics (and Orthodox) believed or practiced X (Marian doctrines, the Real Presence, a hierarchy, male priests) continuously and gave Scriptural references, whereas Protestants suddenly ‘stop’ believing or practicing but don’t really give Scriptural references to support their stopping. I mean, come on. John 6 is extremely clear as being literal. But in order to have a valid Eucharist, one needs validly ordained priests (Scriptural). It was the anticlericalism of some (not all) Protestants which led them to reject the clear Scripture of John 6 and to–on NO authority but their own misbegotten ‘personal interpretation’ decide that the Scripture, after 1600 years, had ‘really meant only a symbol’ and thus priests were ‘not needed’.
Now this doesn’t mean that current Protestants might not sincerely and truly, after 400 plus years of being told how ‘correct’ their interpretation was, believe it. It also doesn’t mean that those Protestants might not be wonderful, kind, Christian and loving people. But it does mean. . .despite their fervent and devout belief. . . that they are wrong. . .that a major foundation of their belief is ‘built on sand’, and was deliberately built in order not to ‘raise up’ the "truth’ but to ‘tear down’ Catholicism and clerics. . .mostly in order for power and money.
As for translations. . .hey, just because a given bible translates a word or phrase one way does not make that way ‘correct’. In my admittedly rusty Latin, “Gratia plena” does not translate to “highly favored one” by any stretch of the imagination. Still less does the original Greek translate that way. I’ll go with being as close to the original rather than to a ‘modern’ way with more than likely an agenda (even if an unwitting one, and ‘agenda’ is not necessarily an evil thing–no doubt it is well intentioned if it does exist).
Now this doesn’t mean that current Protestants might not sincerely and truly, after 400 plus years of being told how ‘correct’ their interpretation was, believe it. It also doesn’t mean that those Protestants might not be wonderful, kind, Christian and loving people. But it does mean. . .despite their fervent and devout belief. . . that they are wrong. . .that a major foundation of their belief is ‘built on sand’, and was deliberately built in order not to ‘raise up’ the "truth’ but to ‘tear down’ Catholicism and clerics. . .mostly in order for power and money.
As for translations. . .hey, just because a given bible translates a word or phrase one way does not make that way ‘correct’. In my admittedly rusty Latin, “Gratia plena” does not translate to “highly favored one” by any stretch of the imagination. Still less does the original Greek translate that way. I’ll go with being as close to the original rather than to a ‘modern’ way with more than likely an agenda (even if an unwitting one, and ‘agenda’ is not necessarily an evil thing–no doubt it is well intentioned if it does exist).
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
This is something that has always gotten me, please bear with me…
#1. If Mary was to be without sin so that Christ could be within her womb (because He, being without sin, couldn’t be in a body that had the stain of original sin) then why wouldn’t she need the same thing from her mother and so on and so forth? It seems to me that since God can do anything He could protect Himself from that stain, why is it that it appears that catholics feel she needed to be without sin to carry Christ?
#2. To your point above, your precedent doesn’t stand. Adam was without the stain of original sin because it hadn’t happened yet. So was Eve.
#3. Could God have done this for Mary, of course! And if He did then that is wonderful. There is nothing in what we have a solid proof of this. It wasn’t even declared as dogma until 1854 and the celebration of the immaculate conception wasn’t established until 1476 - WAY after the birth of Christ and her birth for that matter.
From Wikipedia:
O
onenow1
Guest
This is something that has always gotten me, please bear with me…
HI,
It’s very likely that John the Baptist was born without sin also.
Luke 1
14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;
15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God
Peace, onenow1
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Um, Wikipedia is wikipedia. . .anybody can write what s/he chooses.
Here is something better: New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia (and the 1913 edition too):
Immaculate Conception:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
God bless.
Here is something better: New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia (and the 1913 edition too):
Immaculate Conception:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
God bless.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
This I can see, “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” clearly stipulating that this was from birth. Where is this said about Mary? I would think that if Scripture was to say this specifically about John then why oh why wouldn’t it be said about the Mother of Christ?Singinbeauty;4270228:
HI,
It’s very likely that John the Baptist was born without sin also.
Luke 1
14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;
15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God
Peace, onenow1
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
I don’t see anything that contradicts what was written in Wikipedia… It still says that it wasn’t dogma until 1854.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
To address this further, the use of the 1854 date is an attempt (not by you personally, I hasten to say) to make it appear that this is a trumped up and ‘new’ “Catholic” idea. . .when the truth of the matter is, the feast, the doctrine, the ‘conception’, the teaching etc. all took place well before that date. . .back, indeed, when Christendom was united. . .centuries before the Protestants came.
IOW, even the very first of the Protestant leaders believed in the Immaculate Conception. . .men like Martin Luther. While he would not have used the particular terminology (especially since English was not his native language!) he himself ‘venerated’ Mary for her sinlessnes, as the ‘new Eve’. . .all those things which people would have you believe 'sprang up out of nowhere among Catholics in 1854". . .yet were held to by Martin Luther in 1517. . .nearly 350 years ‘earlier’. . .
IOW, even the very first of the Protestant leaders believed in the Immaculate Conception. . .men like Martin Luther. While he would not have used the particular terminology (especially since English was not his native language!) he himself ‘venerated’ Mary for her sinlessnes, as the ‘new Eve’. . .all those things which people would have you believe 'sprang up out of nowhere among Catholics in 1854". . .yet were held to by Martin Luther in 1517. . .nearly 350 years ‘earlier’. . .
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
When Mary was born, she already carried Jesus inside her.
A woman is born with every egg she will ever release.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, no, no.
Things don’t “Turn into dogma” on date X, and not have been ‘dogma’ the day before, week before, year before, etc.
In order to be dogmatic, it means that it had to have existed as a truth of Christianity from the beginning.
There is no such thing as a ‘dogma that came about in 1854’. Only an eternal truth which was dogmatically **proclaimed **in 1854.
Do you see the difference?
Things don’t “Turn into dogma” on date X, and not have been ‘dogma’ the day before, week before, year before, etc.
In order to be dogmatic, it means that it had to have existed as a truth of Christianity from the beginning.
There is no such thing as a ‘dogma that came about in 1854’. Only an eternal truth which was dogmatically **proclaimed **in 1854.
Do you see the difference?
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
My point was, though, that even though it was believed earlier - it wasn’t required but all of a sudden it became required to believe. It seems to me that if it were absolute Truth why didn’t it start out as required.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
Not exactly, you need a VERY important sperm to carry a human. Reproduction 101 anyone? That egg could be ANYONE depending on which guy’s sperm enters it.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
Not exactly but I am beginning to. Sorry, being born a protestant means I was never exposed to this stuff… thanx for bearing with me while I figure this out… LOL
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
It was. It did.
Dogmatic proclamations come about not as ‘new’ teachings. . .but to proclaim what has been ‘challenged’ by men, either implicitly or explicitly. The canon of the Bible existed more than 1000 years before it was made ‘clear’ at the Council of Trent. . .among the reasons for having to make it ‘clear’ was that some groups had ‘taken out’ some of the books.
You know the Nicene Creed was not proclaimed until the 4th century. . .but surely people ‘believed’ it before then. Why was it not ‘proclaimed’ until the 4th century? If it were truth, it shouldn’t have ‘needed’ to be proclaimed. . .
The Holy Spirit guides us to all Truth. That means that Truth, while eternal in its core, sometimes becomes more fully revealed (like the doctrine of the Trinity), and sometimes comes under attack and needs to be set forth as the Truth it is.
Dogmatic proclamations come about not as ‘new’ teachings. . .but to proclaim what has been ‘challenged’ by men, either implicitly or explicitly. The canon of the Bible existed more than 1000 years before it was made ‘clear’ at the Council of Trent. . .among the reasons for having to make it ‘clear’ was that some groups had ‘taken out’ some of the books.
You know the Nicene Creed was not proclaimed until the 4th century. . .but surely people ‘believed’ it before then. Why was it not ‘proclaimed’ until the 4th century? If it were truth, it shouldn’t have ‘needed’ to be proclaimed. . .
The Holy Spirit guides us to all Truth. That means that Truth, while eternal in its core, sometimes becomes more fully revealed (like the doctrine of the Trinity), and sometimes comes under attack and needs to be set forth as the Truth it is.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Hey, thank YOU for bearing with me (though I need to hit the hay) while I try to explain things. As a Catholic (though with many Protestant, agnostic, lapsed, Buddist, and even Jewish family and friends), there are times that my mind works in "Catholic shorthand’. . .meaning some things are so deeply inculcated into my understanding that I don’t even consciously realize they’re there,( it’s like not being ‘conscious’ of how I am breathing, I just breathe without thinking about it) and forget others might not automatically have that knowledge themselvesl
P
Peter_J
Guest
Nothing that isn’t part of the Deposit of Faith (or if you want to be really precise, replace “part of” with “referable to”) can be dogmatically defined. So when Catholics say, for example, that the I.C. is a dogma, that implies that it was always a doctrine of the faith, even though it wasn’t a dogma until 1854.
Keep in mind that Catholics, like other Christians, believe that the Deposit of Faith, or “faith once deliver to the saints”, never changes.
Hope that helps,
- Status