G
- Status
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The conjunction “until” (eos) in Matthew 1:25 can refer to either the time before or after the birth of Jesus. The author is strictly concerned with the time before the birth of Christ. He is emphasizing that the birth of Jesus was indeed a virginal birth in accordance with the veiled prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.
The Greek translation “full of grace” is ‘kecharitomene’ the past perfect participle of charito. This means Mary was in a state of grace before the angel Gabriel appeared to her. She is not merely favoured because she has been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. She was granted the favour or privilege of being preserved free from original sin on account she would be the mother of the holy Son of the Most High.
The doctrines of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity, however, do not rest on single phrases or grammatical exponents. The Church takes Scripture as a whole and Tradition into account when defining an official Marian doctrine.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
N
NonDenom
Guest
Really, where did Jesus say that Mary was sinless and that she was assumed to Heaven?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Where did rciadan make the claim that Jesus said that? I don’t see it anywhere in his/her quote.
I think rciadan was referring to the fact that Jesus told the Church (for example in John’s Gospel) that the Holy Spirit would guide Her in teaching only the truth. If Mary was not sinless or was not assumed into heaven, then the Church would be teaching a falsehood. Hence, Jesus’ promise of Divine guidance would have been false.
Catholics trust that Jesus was speaking the truth when discussing this with the Apostles.
N
NonDenom
Guest
Where did rciadan make the claim that Jesus said that? I don’t see it anywhere in his/her quote.
Read her post again
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Now Bill Clinton might say that “All” doesn’t really mean "All’, but I don’t think Jesus would. I don’t want to hear that Jesus is included in ALL, because he IS God.
T
Turtullian
Guest
Jesus is also a man. If you say that Christ has no human nature then you are a monophysite by default.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I have read it again. Where does she claim that Jesus said this?
What does "All of Judea and Jerusalem came to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
Did everyone of Judea come to the Jordan?
It doesn’t take Bill Clinton to figure out that “all” does not always mean all.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Yes, but is Jesus “All God” or is He also Man. I echo Turtullian’s post - are you claiming that Jesus was/is not man?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Protestants typically point to Romans 3:23 as “proof” against the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The IC of Mary means that she was conceived without original sin. However, this verse does not refer to original sin, which is imputed to almost all of mankind through Adam and Eve. But in the beginning, Adam and Eve were created without the imputation of original sin. This stigma which mankind has inherited resulted from their personal disobedience against God. In effect, as part of God’s plan of our redemption, the new Adam, Jesus, and the new Eve, Mary, entered the world without the imputation of original sin. To reverse the fall of mankind, the new Adam and the new Eve had to be in the original state of sanctified grace which Adam and Eve were in when they were first created. God in his wisdom has planned our salvation so. Mary exemplified that she was unlike Eve and greater than Eve when she said to the angel Gabriel: “I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to his will.” Luke assures us that the new Eve was sinless, unlike her anti-type who brought sin into the world. Eve brought death, Mary brought salvation by accepting God’s will to bear our Lord and Saviour.
There are exceptions to the word “all” (pas). Paul’s use of the word means “most” or “almost all”, for there are exceptional people recorded in the NT who had never sinned or disobeyed God in like manner of Adam and Eve. Besides the account of Mary’s “fiat” we find exceptions to the norm in the persons of Zachary and Elizabeth and their offspring John the Baptist: “Both were just before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord” (Lk 1:6). “For he shall be great before the Lord; he shall drink no wine and no strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1:15). These people were not preserved free from original sin, but they are presented as sinless people in their individual lives before God. And what about babies or mentally retarded people with no reasoning power? Have they committed personal sins against God? Have camatose or senile persons sinned in their state of existence? I think not. Paul is not telling us that every single human being has committed personal sins against God. “The entire world has gone after him” (Jn 12:19). Did everyone in the entire world actually follow Christ? “All Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). We know for sure that not “all” Israel will be saved. The Greek word ‘pas’ does not mean everyone. :nope:
In Romans 5:12, Paul reflects on the sin of Adam in view of Christ’s redemptive death. Original sin is a dreadful influence that has affected humanity. As descendants of Adam, we have the inclination to rebel against God. We often exalt in our own desires and interests against the will of God. Meanwhile, we have no excuse to personally sin. It would be wrong for us to tell God “But Adam made me do it”, or “This is how you created me, Lord. What do you expect?” We are all culpable, or most of us are. We are still responsible for the sins we commit, for we have the power to resist the devil’s temptations by the grace of God. Adam and Eve were in a state of grace before they decided to disobey God and sin against him. They rejected his grace. Jesus and Mary, on the other hand, are recorded in the Gospels as having perfectly responded to God’s grace in doing his will. We find no biblical account of Mary ever having disobeyed God. So everyone does not necessarily sin according to the Gospels. Because Mary was preserved free from original sin, she was not flawed and thus inclined to sin like the rest of us. The devil may have tried to tempt her as he did Jesus, but again he must have failed in his attempt. Satan was unaware that the new Adam and the new Eve were free from original sin and its effects. Both Jesus and Mary obeyed God with perfection. Jesus said: “There is no one greater than John except those who are least in the kingdom of heaven.” The only two people greater than John were the Son of man and his mother Mary, who were conceived without original sin. :yup:
“God made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his own counsel.” (Sir 15:14)
Mary, unlike Eve, never forfeited the grace she was conceived with. Original sin is the absence of that grace upon our conception in the womb. We recover it in the sacrament of Baptism. Yet we remain flawed and imperfect.
“He who is born of God does not commit sin.” (1Jn 3:9)
“Let no one presume to hope for the mercy of God, who dares to slight or offend God’s mother.”
St.Louis de Montfort
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
C
cyberjacques
Guest
We all risk not being saved. To be human is to be sinful, with only the smallest handful of exceptions, and to be sinful is to risk not being saved. Converts need to understand this as much as anyone. Why would they convert if they felt no fear of the alternative?
So, these are boiled peanuts?
“A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.” - Willy Wonka
God bless!
M
MariaG
Guest
It would have to be true. Entrust to faithful men. Pillar and foundation of truth…
I could go on. But scripture EXPLICITLY tells us where to look for the truth and for explanation of God’s inspired word. Islam is not the pillar and foundation of truth therefore whatever they say, is suspect.
To think that a saint will not recieve a crown in heaven is directly contradicting explicit scripture.
2 Tim 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.
James 1:12 - Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.
1 Peter 5:4 - And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.
Rev. 2:10 -Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.
As for prophecy or vision of where we see Mary specifically receiving the Crown that all saints will recieve, it is in the following scripture.
Rev. 12:1 - And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
I will stop here so we can discuss this scripture
Explanations have been given many times and will doubtless be given again many times in the future to others, but we can do so again, and again and again…God Bless,
Maria
M
MariaG
Guest
A very good place to go to get the Catholic explanation of Scripture Catholic. It has “lists” of scripture about subjects.
Or the Catechism by the subject.
Or here on this site if you would give alternate explanations when scripture explanations, which have been many, are given to you instead of just the assertion that we are not interpreting scripture correctly.
We will run into problems since you feel that the words and interpretation of the ECF are the ones in error rather than those who came along over a thousand years later:shrug: But I am always willing to discuss scripture
Or the Catechism by the subject.
Or here on this site if you would give alternate explanations when scripture explanations, which have been many, are given to you instead of just the assertion that we are not interpreting scripture correctly.
We will run into problems since you feel that the words and interpretation of the ECF are the ones in error rather than those who came along over a thousand years later:shrug: But I am always willing to discuss scripture
[/quote]
M
MariaG
Guest
Of course. They are “professionals”. Many of them are converts who used to be pastors in Protestant churches.
Most pastors/priests can explain things bettert than the people in the pews. Just because we are not explaining as well as they do, does not mean we are not expressing the truth, just not doing it well.
Last time I read/heard we are not exempted from spreading the good news just because we don’t explain it as good as someone else.
But respectfully, everytime you have been directed to those peoples words, you tell me that you don’t have time to read things and ask us to explain it in our own words.
Like a catch twenty two with you for everything.
Show it to me in scripture. You disagree with the interpretation and tell us we don’t have context.
Show it to me in history. You say you didn’t know the Chruch fell into error so soon.
Tell us that we aren’t explaining it as well as professional apologists. When you are directed to them, you tell us to summarize since you don’t have time to read.
Seriously. Go to the beginning of your posts here in these forums and your dialogues. This is what you are doing. Ask yourself why you came here? Do you come here with questions about the Catholic faith? Or did you come here to try to share the “truth” with Catholics who are blinded?
M
MariaG
Guest
His alternative can be found in the Chick Tracts!
Are you truly serious here?
There are so many lies and distortions in Chick Tracts about the teachings of the Catholic church it needs it’s own thread to address them. If it is, you need to start a thread and we will address each and every lie in those tracts very easily.
Or are you just referring to some of the general ones that share the gospel and don’t attack the teachings of the Catholic church?
J
justasking4
Guest
i was being facetious but i’m not sure of the poster.
J
justasking4
Guest
What i continually see here is not a serious engagement of the issues. For example when i state something is not found in scripture it usually some kind of “implicit” argument. That in and of itself is not an argument but an assertion. When i show from historical sources that this was not mentioned for centuries, people will fall back on some kind of “oral tradition”. When i ask where i ask for evidence of a oral tradition, again more assertions.
All these are questions about the catholic faith and yet many mock me for asking them instead of seriously looking at these things.
So what is the truth about the immaculate conception and assumption? What i see here is that those believe it primarily on the premise that the catholic church claims it so and that is enough.
i don’t see most catholics here want to know the truth.
Y
YADA
Guest
And what we continually see from you [and others] is that you accept your own implicit theologies, doctrines, and biblical beliefs while at the same time totally ignore the passages we provide…you reject any interpretation other than your own.
Historical writings are discounted by you based upon the date or that they too are not ‘explicit’ enough to satisfy you. You totally ignore the fact that if something was written [for example in 377 AD] about Mary and no writtings ae in evidence that this belief was 1. novel or unigue 2. the writer was NOT called a heretic 3. no counter arguement or opposing view is in the record that this lack in the record is evidence that the beliefs were not new or controversial, etc.
You fail to acknowledge that the beleifs of regarding Mary derived directly from the controversies surround the Trinity and the Divinity/humanity of Christ.
You fail to acknowledge that the Reformers held these same views. For example the belief that Mary was not ever virgin is rather new to the Christian faith…basically arising during the period called the Enlightenment [or Modernism, The Age of Reason, etc late 1800’s]
You have created a position for yourself - you are the head of your own church, determining your own scriptures and interpretation of them, and your own orthodoxy, your won doctrine…You are the head of the Church of Justasking4 - You join millions of other churches who hold similar [but not exactly the same truths] as you…
By the way …Your predictions welcomed…When did you say the the Second Comng would occur? Month, Day, and Year, you don’t need to tell me the hour [as it probably violates some passage of scripture - for you]
Please let me know…I want to plan on attending Mass the following day at my local parish and plan for the dinner party I’ll be throwing the next week…
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you accept other catholic interpretations that don’t agree with yours?
When you don’t have any evidence for a belief as with this historical statement, then what do you do? Its quite clear when you read about her supposed assumption there are no eyewitness accounts. Its not mentioned for centuries.
Good point. A lot of the marian doctrines is from a misunderstanding what it meant to be the “God bearer”.
The reformers were not infallible and held to false ideas at times.
You are also in a position that is far worse than mine. If you are a serious catholic you have to defend all that your church teaches and done throughout the centuries. You have to find ways to harmonize scripture with traditions and do so in ways that violate what the scriptures mean in context. I would not want to have to defend so much of its history and what it has done. No thanks.
No man knows the day or the hour.
You should always be ready for His coming. Be it in the physical return of Christ or your own death.
M
MariaG
Guest
Oh, good
You didn’t seem to be the type who was getting their info from Jack Chick, but there are some here who think Jack Chick is the 13th apostle and his tracts are the gospel truth.
You had me scared for a minute
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
- Status