John the Baptist born without sin

[NotWorthy]

Mary was baptized while in the womb of her mother?

BRB is correct in his answer to you, although Mary’s case goes far beyond what you and I receive in Baptism, for we are still affected with the stain of Original Sin.

Mary, Kecharitomone, which is the name the angel called her, was filled with Grace. The Greek rendering of the word indicates that this “grace-filling” was from the very beginning and continued throughout. This is one of the reasons Catholics teach that the was free from sin.

This “freeing of sin” comes from Jesus, of course, so yes He is still her Savior. He just saved her **before **she fell into the pit of sin, rather than **removing her from **the pit of sin as He does for you and I. Same Savior. Same role.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Yes, Catholic dogma teaches she was baptized by the H.S. at the moment the two haploid germ cells joined. Thus, original sin was washed away and she was forever thereafter with H.S. and forever w/o sin.

I appreciate your response, but this is an non-biblical teaching developed my man. What right does man have to amend God’s word?

With Blessings,
Justin

 

[NotWorthy]

I appreciate your response, but this is an non-biblical teaching developed my man. What right does man have to amend God’s word?

With Blessings,
Justin

I appreciate your response. But just because the Immaculate Conception is not contained in “one verse” that people can quote, does not make it un-biblical. What right does man have to contain God’s Word in “verses”. The teaching of the Immaculate Conception is far older than your faith. I would tread carefully when talking about “developments of man”.

 

[BRB]

I appreciate your response, but this is an non-biblical teaching developed my man. What right does man have to amend God’s word?

With Blessings,
Justin

I used to believe that she was purified when the angel Gabriel came to her @ age 13. But, the Catholic Theologians tell me I’m late to the game. Catholic Marian doctrine necessitates that she be ‘ever w/o sin’ … so the Church teaches that her Salvation was effected right after conception. Baptized by Jesus … so to speak.

Not before, or as part of conception … since she had only ‘fallen’ human genetic DNA. So … she is not a God - woman.

Her birth very different from that of God-man Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

I appreciate your response, but this is an non-biblical teaching developed my man. What right does man have to amend God’s word?

With Blessings,
Justin

I appreciate your response. But just because the Immaculate Conception is not contained in “one verse” that people can quote, does not make it un-biblical. What right does man have to contain God’s Word in “verses”. The teaching of the Immaculate Conception is far older than your faith. I would tread carefully when talking about “developments of man”.

 

[NotWorthy]

so the Church teaches that her Salvation was effected right after conception. Baptized by Jesus … so to speak.

I’d hesitate to call this a “Baptism”, though. Baptism washes us from our sins. Mary was conceived without sin. Baptism also doesn’t fix our tendency to sin, concupiscence, which is the “stain of original sin”. Mary didn’t suffer from this. She could have sinned, but she wasn’t born with the inclination to sin like (probably) you and (definitely) I are.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

I appreciate your response. But just because the Immaculate Conception is not contained in “one verse” that people can quote, does not make it un-biblical. What right does man have to contain God’s Word in “verses”. The teaching of the Immaculate Conception is far older than your faith. I would tread carefully when talking about “developments of man”.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

How could you say that just because it’s not written in God’s word doesn’t make it unbiblical?

The Jew’s of the Old Testament were not to modify the Torah. Their text strictly prohibits it (Deuteronomy 12:32). Now, God is an unchanging God, that same rule applies to us. It’s manifested all over the New Testament:

Colossians 2

8 **Beware lest any man spoil you **through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Galatians 1

8 **But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. **

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul wrote to the Galatian church that if anyone comes teaching or preaching anything OTHER than what we (Jesus’ disciples) have been teaching, let him be accursed. The Bible is God’s word. And within his word he states that we are to observe it, and not add, or take away from it.

The origins of the Immaculate Conception are from the tradition of man, and not of God.

 

[NotWorthy]

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

How could you say that just because it’s not written in God’s word doesn’t make it unbiblical?

Did I say it that way? I don’t think I did. I think I said you won’t be able to wrap it up in a single verse for “pocketbook apologetics”. Instead you need to read all of Scripture to get what God says. You, my friend, seem to be wrapped up in “Sola Verse-ura”, for if there is no single verse you can say to evangelize, then it must not be true.

That sort of theology makes teaching others of the doctrine of the Trinity sort of hard to do.

The Jew’s of the Old Testament were not to modify the Torah. Their text strictly prohibits it (Deuteronomy 12:32). Now, God is an unchanging God, that same rule applies to us. It’s manifested all over the New Testament:

Two Points:

1. The Jews are a bad example to use, for they did just that. Some of their 611 laws (at the time of Jesus) overruled God’s own commandments.
2. But God Word is not to be contained only in mis-translated verses of the Bible, either. God gave to Christianity a Church and a teaching authority. That Church and teaching authority gave us the Bible. She didn’t turn over all Her authority to the Bible, no matter how many times other Christian faiths demand it.

Colossians 2

8 **Beware lest any man spoil you **through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

This coming from a faith that is how many decades old?

Galatians 1

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

So True, and yet you deny that the Church has the authority to Bind and Loose.

Does that mean you are accursed?!?

Paul wrote to the Galatian church that if anyone comes teaching or preaching anything OTHER than what we (Jesus’ disciples) have been teaching, let him be accursed. The Bible is God’s word. And within his word he states that we are to observe it, and not add, or take away from it.

No. One Book from the bible tells you not to add or take away from that one book. Please don’t add to what that book says, Rulki!!!

Besides, I wasn’t aware the Church teaches another OTHER than what the Apostles taught. Now, some of these churches (“Johnny-come-lately’s”) that have rid their congregations of altars, the Real Presence at their Eucharist, numerous Sacraments, and other teachings of the Apostles… does that make them accursed, Rulki?

The origins of the Immaculate Conception are from the tradition of man, and not of God.

Sorry, but the origins of the Immaculate Conception are from the Traditions of the Church that Christ built.

 

[BRB]

Rulkie …

Does your church have weekly Eucharist ? If not … they be bigtime breaking instruction of the Word. Do they see the Eucharist as a living sacrifice sacrament …or just a ordinance / symbol ?

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Did I say it that way? I don’t think I did. I think I said you won’t be able to wrap it up in a single verse for “pocketbook apologetics”. Instead you need to read all of Scripture to get what God says. You, my friend, seem to be wrapped up in “Sola Verse-ura”, for if there is no single verse you can say to evangelize, then it must not be true.

That sort of theology makes teaching others of the doctrine of the Trinity sort of hard to do.

Two Points:

1. The Jews are a bad example to use, for they did just that. Some of their 611 laws (at the time of Jesus) overruled God’s own commandments.
2. But God Word is not to be contained only in mis-translated verses of the Bible, either. God gave to Christianity a Church and a teaching authority. That Church and teaching authority gave us the Bible. She didn’t turn over all Her authority to the Bible, no matter how many times other Christian faiths demand it.

This coming from a faith that is how many decades old?

So True, and yet you deny that the Church has the authority to Bind and Loose.

Does that mean you are accursed?!?

No. One Book from the bible tells you not to add or take away from that one book. Please don’t add to what that book says, Rulki!!!

Besides, I wasn’t aware the Church teaches another OTHER than what the Apostles taught. Now, some of these churches (“Johnny-come-lately’s”) that have rid their congregations of altars, the Real Presence at their Eucharist, numerous Sacraments, and other teachings of the Apostles… does that make them accursed, Rulki?

Sorry, but the origins of the Immaculate Conception are from the Traditions of the Church that Christ built.

The binding and loosing stopped at Peter. There is no evidence that one is able to pass the keys of heaven. Peter took the keys and started the engine, if you will, in the book of Acts.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Rulkie …

Does your church have weekly Eucharist ? If not … they be bigtime breaking instruction of the Word. Do they see the Eucharist as a living sacrifice sacrament …or just a ordinance / symbol ?

We do it on a yearly basis. This is not the topic to talk about communion… we’re already far off topic.

 

[NotWorthy]

The binding and loosing stopped at Peter. There is no evidence that one is able to pass the keys of heaven. Peter took the keys and started the engine, if you will, in the book of Acts.

Where does it say that? God gave the “binding and loosing” to Peter and (in Matthew 18) all the Apostles as a group.

A) Peter, in Acts chapter 1, makes it clear that the position of Apostle is an office. Jesus reinforces this when He tells the Apostle to go out to every nation (in Matthew 28) and baptize and teach… Did every nation meet the Apostles? No. But they met the successors.
B) Do you honestly think the need to “bind and loose” was no more for the next 2000 years?!?

 

[NotWorthy]

We do it on a yearly basis. This is not the topic to talk about communion… we’re already far off topic.

But do you believe that you are consuming the Body and Blood of Jesus, as the Apostles taught? If not, it is a tradition of man, and that is no more off-topic than any of your “tradition of men” accusations.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

But do you believe that you are consuming the Body and Blood of Jesus, as the Apostles taught? If not, it is a tradition of man, and that is no more off-topic than any of your “tradition of men” accusations.

The communion is symbolic. It draws it’s parallels from the Passover Seder. Jesus, a Jew, was presenting himself as the Messiah. His audience, also Jews, understood the symbolism of that meal on that particular night.

I have an article going in to more detail. I can upload it later if you’d like.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Where does it say that? God gave the “binding and loosing” to Peter and (in Matthew 18) all the Apostles as a group.

A) Peter, in Acts chapter 1, makes it clear that the position of Apostle is an office. Jesus reinforces this when He tells the Apostle to go out to every nation (in Matthew 28) and baptize and teach… Did every nation meet the Apostles? No. But they met the successors.
B) Do you honestly think the need to “bind and loose” was no more for the next 2000 years?!?

The Apostles did go out and spread the gospel, praise God, as did their successors. But the line must be drawn as to which version of the gospel must be spread. Jesus intended for His version of the message to be sent out, not one that has been modified by man over the years.

 

[NotWorthy]

The communion is symbolic. It draws it’s parallels from the Passover Seder. Jesus, a Jew, was presenting himself as the Messiah. His audience, also Jews, understood the symbolism of that meal on that particular night.

I have an article going in to more detail. I can upload it later if you’d like.

The communion is NOT symbolic as evidenced by Paul in Corinthians and EVERY generation of Christians from then on. The “symbolism” was never introduced until men invented it in the 16th century (give or take a few years).

Can you show me where anybody taught that the Communion in the Church’s liturgy was ever nothing more than symbolic.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Apostles did go out and spread the gospel, praise God, as did their successors. But the line must be drawn as to which version of the gospel must be spread. Jesus intended for His version of the message to be sent out, not one that has been modified by man over the years.

But where does it say the line is? You seemed to have been very confident in claiming that the authority to bind and loose dies with Peter. Where do the NT Scriptures claim this? Peter seems to indicate in Acts, chapter 1, that the role of authority is passed on. Paul confirms this in his writings to Timothy.

You seem to dis-claim this 2000 year teaching of the Church, and then turn around and accuse the Church of creating traditions of men.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

The communion is NOT symbolic as evidenced by Paul in Corinthians and EVERY generation of Christians from then on. The “symbolism” was never introduced until men invented it in the 16th century (give or take a few years).

Can you show me where anybody taught that the Communion in the Church’s liturgy was ever nothing more than symbolic.

Jesus is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8)

You want to believe that you need a physical bread to sustain your (eternal) life. You have the exact same carnal feelings and understand of the communion bread as the Jews did in John 6. Read that chapter again. The Jews wanted a PSYCHIAL bread, just like their forefathers ate. They wanted mana from heaven.

When Jesus said I am the living bread, you must eat my flesh… what did those Jews do? John 6:66… They walked with him no more. Because they were still thinking carnally, they wanted physical bread to eat for everlasting life. Jesus said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no (eternal) life in you.

Those Jews were thinking carnally. They we not thinking spiritually. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. It’s not physical or carnal, it’s spiritual.

Shortly after they left Jesus, He turned to his disciples and asked if they too would leave… and what did they say? “Never, because you (Jesus) have the **words **of eternal life” (notice he didn’t save flesh and blood)

What does this flesh and blood have to do with anything? Read on the Jewish tradition of passover. After the meal, the leader of the Seder presents the Afikomen, which is a piece of the passover lamb. The members of the Passover feast ate of the Afikomen in remembrance of the slain Passover Lamb that has pushed back the sins of the Jews. This is the custom of the time, and still is today, except the Jews can no longer sacrifice lambs, but instead use a piece of matzah as the afikomen.

But when Jesus presented the afikomen, he wasn’t holding a piece of the passover lamb, he held a piece of bread (matzah). By him stating “This is my body” he told his disciples that HE IS THE PASSOVER LAMB, and with the shedding of HIS blood, all sins are forgiven, not just pushed back.

Read about the Passover Seder regarding the 4 cups of wine. There are four cups which represent the four promises from God to the Jews from Exodus 6:6-7:

1. I will take you out
2. I will save you
3. I will redeem you
4. I will take you as a nation

The first two cups are drunk before the meal, and the 3rd and 4th are drunk after the meal. After the meal, Jesus took the 3rd cup, the cup of redemption, and said “This is my Blood” Jesus was saying that His blood was the redeeming promise for God. We are redeemed by Jesus’ blood.

The Jews of the time completely understood the symbolic reference that Jesus was making. We are to still hold these traditions in remembrance of Him, but it’s not as important how often we do it, what’s important is THAT we do it. Paul as “as **often **as thee…” (1 Cor 11:26)

 

[Rulkiewicz]

But where does it say the line is? You seemed to have been very confident in claiming that the authority to bind and loose dies with Peter. Where do the NT Scriptures claim this? Peter seems to indicate in Acts, chapter 1, that the role of authority is passed on. Paul confirms this in his writings to Timothy.

You seem to dis-claim this 2000 year teaching of the Church, and then turn around and accuse the Church of creating traditions of men.

There is a line. And it has drastially strayed from the church that Peter built on the Day of Pentecost.

Are the topics and practices of the Catholic church taught in the bible, or even in the 1st century?

 

[Joe_5859]

Fully man and Fully God. He was born via the Holy Spirit and not a man, therefore He wasn’t born into Sin. In other words, if you’re conceived by a man and a woman, you are born in to sin. This applies to all of us except Jesus.

Do you have a Scripture verse to back up that qualification? Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned.” It does not say that “all who were conceived by a man and a woman have sinned.”