Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[joe370]

May I ask Joe or is it Sidebar, why we would leave scripture aside for a while and then come up with conjecture like this? If God created Mary in a sinless state? Is this what underpins the doctrine of mary? I would hope not

Sure. God’s actions and teachings are not exclusively limited to the pages of the bound codified Bible. If they were then every non-catholic had/has the right to reject the doctrinal decisions of the early catholic ecumenical councils that defined dogmas such as the Trinity and Theotokos, just as they were disputed/rejected by many from within the catholic church, in the 4th century necessitating the need for the CC to speak definitively. Thank God those dissenters didn’t get their way. Those catholic church councils can be trusted only if God was telling the truth when He said that He would be guiding His church into all truth until the end of time.

God acts and teaches via His Church, which is why we can trust that God’s established Church (on Pentecost) - successfully and accurately preserved, safeguarded and eventually codified the bound canon of scripture to begin with, (when 7 books of the NT were often disputed in certain parts right up until the 4th century) - and why scripture tells us that God is forever with His church, guiding His Church into all truth until the end of time.

Jesus’ church telling me that Mary is sinless is tantamount to God Himself telling me that Mary is sinless, even if that declaration is found nowhere in sacred scripture. A perfect example is Jesus’ church telling me that the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Son and the Holy Spirit, are one even though that declaration is found nowhere is scripture. What is found in the bound codified Bible, regarding the Trinity, has to do with the Father and the Son only. For example:

“I and the Father are one…”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

To get a perspective you could try the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (far too long for my typing skills to type out)! (51:71-83)

You could also refer to the Papal Encyclical “Redemptorist Mater”. Your best bet, though, would be “Ineffabilis Deus”.

So these sources are the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

You claim just to be stating facts.

“The sinful flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of was the sinful flesh of His mother. Again this is just a fact and not an interpretation.”

This is not a fact; what you have given is your interpretation of the text. It is eisegesis. Nowhere in Romans does it mention the ‘sinful flesh of his mother’. Bearing in mind, of course ‘Sola Scriptura’; you shouldn’t add personal words to the Word of God - even if Luther did choose to insert the word ‘alone’ in his German translation of Romans - which was the catalyst for the whole sad consequential results.

Personal interpretation (and its catastrophic effects) is hardly an irrelevance: it is core to the discussion.

So, are you saying that Jesus did not come in the likeness of His mother’s flesh?

 

[CopticChristian]

Correct.

Your probably right, but the point is that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles andthe chaurch being very young I am sure He had some part in evangelising the Roman church. His letter to them could be considered such. Anyway is that all you have to say about my reply

No. In the letter to the Romans Paul is making the point to the Jews, believing that they were not under the power of sin to say “all have sinned”, Jew and Gentile alike…and if someone were to ask Paul, What about Jesus,…well that goes without saying Paul would say…and what about everybaby in the womb? have they sinned??..and What about Mary?..Paul could have answered this question however he was not asked nor did he address these questions. The point that Protestants take on this “all” is not the point Paul was making or he would have qualified it and clarified it.

He did not have to because it was a letter to Christians to clarify an issue with Jewish Christians, Judaizing Christians and Gentile Christians…not a dissertation of the sinless Nature of Mary. For Paul to render a correlation of first and second Adam would have been understood without explanation as to first and second eve. The first eve was the instrument of aiding the first adam to sin…for by one man sin entered the world…note Eve is not named…however who in their right mind would say…there was no Eve.

The status of Mary’s sinless was made evident by the Church, the mystery hidden for all ages according to Ephesians, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known. The question was never asked however, the notion was always believed, it is only Protestants that ask the question and then have to render always, always, always fallible opinions based on inerrant/infallible Scripture/translations…There is never in our lives, based on Protestant thought ever going to be anything but a fallible opinion…never, never, never…

Truths are absolute and to be true they must never change and can never change. That is what makes a truth true. Protestants can never render an infallible, inerrant opinion using Scripture. That is true and will always be true.

You fallibly contend that Mary was with sin. Thanks for your fallible opinion.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No. In the letter to the Romans Paul is making the point to the Jews, believing that they were not under the power of sin to say “all have sinned”, Jew and Gentile alike…and if someone were to ask Paul, What about Jesus,…well that goes without saying Paul would say…and what about everybaby in the womb? have they sinned??..and What about Mary?..Paul could have answered this question however he was not asked nor did he address these questions. The point that Protestants take on this “all” is not the point Paul was making or he would have qualified it and clarified it.

Well He did qualify it for Jesus in Hebrews 4: 14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

He also talked about His mother in Rom. 8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. So, again, the flesh that Jesus came in the likeneess of was His mothers flesh, Again, this is just a fact.

He did not have to because it was a letter to Christians to clarify an issue with Jewish Christians, Judaizing Christians and Gentile Christians…not a dissertation of the sinless Nature of Mary. For Paul to render a correlation of first and second Adam would have been understood without explanation as to first and second eve. The first eve was the instrument of aiding the first adam to sin…for by one man sin entered the world…note Eve is not named…however who in their right mind would say…there was no Eve.

Paul did not mention Mary because she was part of the “all” that were sinners. This is brought out in Rom.8:3 Mary as your so-called second Eve was the vehicle by which Jesus entered the world. The “sinful flesh” that He came in the likeness of.

The status of Mary’s sinless was made evident by the Church, the mystery hidden for all ages according to Ephesians, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known.

Eph3
1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Eph.1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

The mystery that was MANIFEST to us and not " the mystery hidden for all ages" was the mystery that God gave His only begotten son to die the death we deserve that we may attain eternal Salvation. There is no mention of Mary in Ephesians.

The question was never asked however, the notion was always believed, it is only Protestants that ask the question and then have to render always, always, always fallible opinions based on inerrant/infallible Scripture/translations…There is never in our lives, based on Protestant thought ever going to be anything but a fallible opinion…never, never, never…

Truths are absolute and to be true they must never change and can never change. That is what makes a truth true. Protestants can never render an infallible, inerrant opinion using Scripture. That is true and will always be true.

You fallibly contend that Mary was with sin. Thanks for your fallible opinion.

The sinlessness of Mary is never even hinted at in scripture and was an idea unknown to them.
I don’t contend anything. I do point out what scripture clearly says and that is that Jesus came in the “likeness of sinful flesh.” That flesh being the flesh of His mother.

 

[joe370]

Hey Coptic, you said:

No. In the letter to the Romans Paul is making the point to the Jews, believing that they were not under the power of sin to say “all have sinned”, Jew and Gentile alike…and if someone were to ask Paul, What about Jesus,…well that goes without saying Paul would say…and what about everybaby in the womb? have they sinned??..and What about Mary?..Paul could have answered this question however he was not asked nor did he address these questions. The point that Protestants take on this “all” is not the point Paul was making or he would have qualified it and clarified it.

Agreed. Paul in his letter to the Romans, had a specific purpose in mind, and the sinless state of Jesus’ mother was totally irrelavent to said purpose. Romans 8 is crystal clear. However, Richard has chosen to select A as the final interpretation regarding the following verse. Does it make any logical sense? No, but I do respect his right to choose A even though Romans 8 clearly says: “…by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man…”

“…God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man…”

A) Romans 8 does not say: …by sending his own Son in the likeness of Mary.

B) Romans 8 says: “…by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man…”

He did not have to because it was a letter to Christians to clarify an issue with Jewish Christians, Judaizing Christians and Gentile Christians…not a dissertation of the sinless Nature of Mary.

For Paul to render a correlation of first and second Adam would have been understood without explanation as to first and second eve. The first eve was the instrument of aiding the first adam to sin…for by one man sin entered the world…note Eve is not named…however who in their right mind would say…there was no Eve.

The New Eve is a theme which runs through the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

The status of Mary’s sinless was made evident by the Church, the mystery hidden for all ages according to Ephesians, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known.

"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord."

To the protestant that verse should be rendered, His intent was that now, through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known…As a former protestant that was quite unnerving…

The question was never asked however, the notion was always believed, it is only Protestants that ask the question and then have to render always, always, always fallible opinions based on inerrant/infallible Scripture/translations…There is never in our lives, based on Protestant thought ever going to be anything but a fallible opinion…never, never, never…Truths are absolute and to be true they must never change and can never change. That is what makes a truth true. Protestants can never render an infallible, inerrant opinion using Scripture. That is true and will always be true.

Exactly. No one church can teach infallibly according to Richard, therefore all protestant/catholic interpretations cannot be known with any degree of infallible certainty, which means, if Richard is correct, those truths that are absolute will always be unknowable to all, if in fact the interpretations of those absolute truths are fallible interpretations.

Of course Richard would be right, with the exception of the church established by God, for the simple fact that God is only guiding one church (I will build my church, not churches) - into all truth until the end of time, as per scripture and history. God cannot be responsible for all of the division that has existed within Christendom since the reformation. That responsibility must rest squarely on the shoulders of the sola scriptura proponents who left Jesus’ established church to start, what they believed, were new and improved churches, embracing novel teachings based on their unique perspective/interpretation of the Bible.

By whose authority does any one person have the right to start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ - was the question I asked myself long ago, as a former protestant?

The answer, to scripture alone advocates, according to scripture is - no one?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well He did qualify it for Jesus in Hebrews 4: 14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

He also talked about His mother in Rom. 8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. So, again, the flesh that Jesus came in the likeneess of was His mothers flesh, Again, this is just a fact.

Paul did not mention Mary because she was part of the “all” that were sinners. This is brought out in Rom.8:3 Mary as your so-called second Eve was the vehicle by which Jesus entered the world. The “sinful flesh” that He came in the likeness of.

Eph3
1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Eph.1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

The mystery that was MANIFEST to us and not " the mystery hidden for all ages" was the mystery that God gave His only begotten son to die the death we deserve that we may attain eternal Salvation. There is no mention of Mary in Ephesians.

The sinlessness of Mary is never even hinted at in scripture and was an idea unknown to them.
I don’t contend anything. I do point out what scripture clearly says and that is that Jesus came in the “likeness of sinful flesh.” That flesh being the flesh of His mother.

Then you would agree that the “likeness of sinful flesh” is flesh that appears to be with sin however is not.

The likeness of a thing does not make the thing similar only in appearanc.

The appearance of sinful flesh however not sinful
There is no sin in the likeness even though it’s appearance is similar to that which is with sin.

Sinful flesh and Sinless fless appear the same. Who could see Jesus and see anything but flesh to those that argued in Romans that they were not under the power of sin?

There is no indication that Mary was with sin except in your prejudiced, fallible view.

You, like the Jew want to ascribe the flesh of Christ to Mary to make your point, let me remind you as Paul reminded the Jew ascribing the sinless quality of their status to Abraham…for don’t you know…

2Wherefore, 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: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Paul wants you to get your head into the understanding that Adam transgressed. It does not take a rocket scientist to think…let me see, Adam…well wasn’t it Eve who was first approached…

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman,

Now wait a minute here Paul, it was Eve…not Adam…look here Paul…

she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Oh, I get it Paul…by one man Adam…OK, I see it…Jesus is a type of Adam…so wait a minute here Paul…OOOOOH…Eve transgressed and Mary said Yes…and the Adam and Eve thing…OK now I understand the typology…

OK so we Jews know that to be a Jew you have to be born of a Jewish woman…and we Jews know this creation story and we got stuck in Abraham…so that is why you didn’t spend time in the letter explaining this…and OK so you don’t have to explain to me about the Adam and Eve thing…OK so Jesus is without sin, Mary is the new Eve and forget about it…I got it…Hope those Protestants 1600 years later don’t mangle this up…well at least Luther did not.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hey Coptic, you said:

Agreed. Paul in his letter to the Romans, had a specific purpose in mind, and the sinless state of Jesus’ mother was totally irrelavent to said purpose. Romans 8 is crystal clear. However, Richard has chosen to select A as the final interpretation regarding the following verse. Does it make any logical sense? No, but I do respect his right to choose A even though Romans 8 clearly says: “…by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man…”

“…God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man…”

A) Romans 8 does not say: …by sending his own Son in the likeness of Mary.

B) Romans 8 says: “…by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man…”

You Know Moses had something to say about what you are doing here Joe.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

I have posted this verse many times on this thead. The KJV and the DRV are both exactly the same.

Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

This does not say “likeness of sinful man” but “likeness of sinful flesh” but even if it did say “likeness of sinful man” it would still include Mary, Because the biblical use of the word “man” means “mankind.”

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; **male and female **created he them.

The New Eve is a theme which runs through the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Exactly where? Chapter and verse?

"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Is this a bible verse? If so where can I find it?

To the protestant that verse should be rendered, His intent was that now, through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known…As a former protestant that was quite unnerving…

You don’t believe that the wisdom of God is made known through the bible?

Exactly. No one church can teach infallibly according to Richard

What in the world is this? I never made a statement anything like this. Is this the tactic now Joe? To be disingenuous and fabricate statements?

therefore all protestant/catholic interpretations cannot be known with any degree of infallible certainty, which means, if Richard is correct, those truths that are absolute will always be unknowable to all, if in fact the interpretations of those absolute truths are fallible interpretations.

Again a complete fabrication. The fact is we can teach infallibly, if we teach the infallible truths of the WORD OF GOD the Bible.

Of course Richard would be right, with the exception of the church established by God, for the simple fact that God is only guiding one church (I will build my church, not churches) - into all truth until the end of time, as per scripture and history. God cannot be responsible for all of the division that has existed within Christendom since the reformation. That responsibility must rest squarely on the shoulders of the sola scriptura proponents who left Jesus’ established church to start, what they believed, were new and improved churches, embracing novel teachings based on their unique perspective/interpretation of the Bible.

Again Rom.8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. says what it says and that is that Jesus came into this world “in the likeness of sinful flesh” and that flesh would be His mother’s flesh

By whose authority does any one person have the right to start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ - was the question I asked myself long ago, as a former protestant?

The answer, to scripture alone advocates, according to scripture is - no one?

All this is just a diversion from the OP. Your OP if I’m not mistaken.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Then you would agree that the “likeness of sinful flesh” is flesh that appears to be with sin however is not.

The likeness of a thing does not make the thing similar only in appearanc.

The appearance of sinful flesh however not sinful
There is no sin in the likeness even though it’s appearance is similar to that which is with sin.

Sinful flesh and Sinless fless appear the same. Who could see Jesus and see anything but flesh to those that argued in Romans that they were not under the power of sin?

There is no indication that Mary was with sin except in your prejudiced, fallible view.

Ok, here it is again Rom.8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Obviously the one without sin is Jesus. The sinful flesh that He came in the likeness of was His mother’s sinful flesh.

 

[CopticChristian]

Ok, here it is again Rom.8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Obviously the one without sin is Jesus. The sinful flesh that He came in the likeness of was His mother’s sinful flesh.

Luther and other Protestants fallibly disagree with your fallible position. If Jesus took his flesh from Mary and He was sinless, flesh comes by chromosomes. Jesus had Mary’s X and if that X was what carried the sin then Jesus was with sin…compare and contrast your fallible opinion on this likeness with the following…

The whole Bible teaches that God’s presence demands and imparts holiness. (Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14; 1 Cor 3:17; 1 Jn 3:5-6; Rev 21:27). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year, under threat of death if God’s instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her physical and spiritual relationship with God, necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness.

In other words, since Jesus took flesh in and from Mary’s body, and also obtained His Human Nature from Her, she had to be perfectly sinless. The only question that then arises is when and how Mary was made sinless.

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church renders and infallible, inerrant opinion. No Protestant can do the same and your opinion is that Mary was with sin, Jesus was without sin and you must wrestle with how Jesus got a sinless nature from a sinful mother. I and others fortunately do not have to wrestle with this.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Luther and other Protestants fallibly disagree with your fallible position. If Jesus took his flesh from Mary and He was sinless, flesh comes by chromosomes. Jesus had Mary’s X and if that X was what carried the sin then Jesus was with sin

I really couldn’t care less what Luther or other Protestants teach. If they teach something contrary to what the bible teaches they are wrong. The same holds true for the CC

…compare and contrast your fallible opinion on this likeness with the following…

The whole Bible teaches that God’s presence demands and imparts holiness. (Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14; 1 Cor 3:17; 1 Jn 3:5-6; Rev 21:27). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year, under threat of death if God’s instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her physical and spiritual relationship with God, necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness.

In other words, since Jesus took flesh in and from Mary’s body, and also obtained His Human Nature from Her, she had to be perfectly sinless. The only question that then arises is when and how Mary was made sinless.

Rom.8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Says that Mary was a sinner. I believe it because it is THE WORD OF GOD, not the word of men.

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church renders and infallible, inerrant opinion.

There is nothing inerrant or infallible about any Catholic opinion IMHO.

No Protestant can do the same and your opinion is that Mary was with sin,

It’s not my opinion Rom.8:3 says so.

Jesus was without sin and you must wrestle with how Jesus got a sinless nature from a sinful mother. I and others fortunately do not have to wrestle with this.

I don’t have to wrestle with anything. The bible says it. I believe it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I really couldn’t care less what Luther or other Protestants teach. If they teach something contrary to what the bible teaches they are wrong. The same holds true for the CC

Rom.8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Says that Mary was a sinner. I believe it because it is THE WORD OF GOD, not the word of men.

There is nothing inerrant or infallible about any Catholic opinion IMHO.

It’s not my opinion Rom.8:3 says so.

I don’t have to wrestle with anything. The bible says it. I believe it.

Really? Nothing infallible about Catholic opinion? The same ‘opinion’ that settled the canon of the Bible --which you claim as your authority?

Which came first --the Church, or the Bible?

Which was given authority by Christ to bind and loose?

Which was called the pillar and bulwark of the Truth?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here is a statement from the Bible.

John 6: [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Now, you tell me. Is Jesus saying that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Why then do so many (not all) Protestants insist He only said this 'symbolically?"

The Bible does NOT say, “This is a SYMBOL of my Blood.”

The Bible does NOT say, "and yea Jesus sayeth to His disciples, ‘This was only an allegory or symbol, I really MEAN something different.’

So if you REALLY listened to what the Bible said, Richard, you’d be a Catholic (or Orthodox) Christian. But you don’t listen to what the Bible says, you listen to what your man-made denomination has ‘interpreted’ a passage as meaning --and that meaning was deliberately engineered to make a FALSE doctrine of the Eucharist in order to eliminate the need for ordained CLERGY.

 

[joe370]

Hey Richard, just a quick clarification regarding the following passage: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

You are not suggesting that the preceding passage is somehow proof positive that Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner??? Just that Jesus, who did not sin, came in the likeness of sinful flesh?

If so then I apologize!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hey Richard, just a quick clarification regarding the following passage: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

You are not suggesting that the preceding passage is somehow proof positive that Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner??? Just that Jesus, who did not sin, came in the likeness of sinful flesh?

If so then I apologize!

Joe, I have posted this text along with my apraisal of what it says at least ten times. It needs no further clarification.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Here is a statement from the Bible.

John 6: [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Now, you tell me. Is Jesus saying that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Why then do so many (not all) Protestants insist He only said this 'symbolically?"

The Bible does NOT say, “This is a SYMBOL of my Blood.”

The Bible does NOT say, "and yea Jesus sayeth to His disciples, ‘This was only an allegory or symbol, I really MEAN something different.’

So if you REALLY listened to what the Bible said, Richard, you’d be a Catholic (or Orthodox) Christian. But you don’t listen to what the Bible says, you listen to what your man-made denomination has ‘interpreted’ a passage as meaning --and that meaning was deliberately engineered to make a FALSE doctrine of the Eucharist in order to eliminate the need for ordained CLERGY.

What does all this have to do with Rom.3 or the sinlessness of Mary?

 

[joe370]

Joe, I have posted this text along with my apraisal of what it says at least ten times. It needs no further clarification.

I was hoping that I might have, in haste, misinterpreted or was perhaps guilty of reading something into your explanation that wasn’t there, but I now understand, with certainty, that you are in fact claiming that Romans 8 is proof positive that Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner, and therefore it needs no further clarification.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t have to wrestle with anything. The bible says it. I believe it.

According to your own personal interpretation,thus I do not believe it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What does all this have to do with Rom.3 or the sinlessness of Mary?

Why it has everything to do with it, Richard.

You see, the passage I noted is clearly Jesus saying we must eat His REAL Flesh. (As Catholics do in the Eucharist and as you, a Protestant, do not).

So while you are insisting on the one hand “Scripture/the Bible says it (your interpretation regarding Mary)” what Scripture actually SAYS is not “the sinful flesh OF MARY” at all, just as Christ says, “eat My Flesh”, not “Eat a SYMBOL of my Flesh”.

In both cases Richard you claim to believe ‘only what the Bible says’ but you actually ignore WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY DOES SAY and ‘add on’ words which the Bible does not say.

In the case of Mary and Rom 3, you ‘add on’ to ‘sinful flesh’ the words ‘of Mary’ and say the passage ‘proves Mary was not sinless’. In fact it proves NOTHING OF THE KIND.

And in the case of John 6, you ‘add on’ to “Eat my Flesh” the words “SYMBOLICALLY SPEAKING” which is not what is taught in Scripture AT ALL.

The idea that you ‘believe what is in the Bible’ is a misunderstanding (at best) on your part. You believe your ‘private interpretation’ of the Bible and in fact, your interpretation contradicts what Scripture actually says.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Why it has everything to do with it, Richard.

You see, the passage I noted is clearly Jesus saying we must eat His REAL Flesh. (As Catholics do in the Eucharist and as you, a Protestant, do not).

So while you are insisting on the one hand “Scripture/the Bible says it (your interpretation regarding Mary)” what Scripture actually SAYS is not “the sinful flesh OF MARY” at all, just as Christ says, “eat My Flesh”, not “Eat a SYMBOL of my Flesh”.

In both cases Richard you claim to believe ‘only what the Bible says’ but you actually ignore WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY DOES SAY and ‘add on’ words which the Bible does not say.

In the case of Mary and Rom 3, you ‘add on’ to ‘sinful flesh’ the words ‘of Mary’ and say the passage ‘proves Mary was not sinless’. In fact it proves NOTHING OF THE KIND.

And in the case of John 6, you ‘add on’ to “Eat my Flesh” the words “SYMBOLICALLY SPEAKING” which is not what is taught in Scripture AT ALL.

The idea that you ‘believe what is in the Bible’ is a misunderstanding (at best) on your part. You believe your ‘private interpretation’ of the Bible and in fact, your interpretation contradicts what Scripture actually says.

Ya, I’m sorry I just don’t see what Jn.6 has to do with the sinlessness of Mary and I didn’t add anything to the scriptures Romans 3:8 says that Jesus came in the “likeness of sinful flesh” The flesh that He came in the likeness of was His mothers flesh, Therefore His mother was sinful. Simple deduction.

 

[CopticChristian]

Ya, I’m sorry I just don’t see what Jn.6 has to do with the sinlessness of Mary and I didn’t add anything to the scriptures Romans 3:8 says that Jesus came in the “likeness of sinful flesh” The flesh that He came in the likeness of was His mothers flesh, Therefore His mother was sinful. Simple deduction.

You would agree that God created the universe, adam and eve and you and I. In consideration that what we discover about life is nothing more than what it is God created you would have no problem with.

You may want to look up fetal and maternal microchimerism. It so happens that fetal cells cross the placenta to the mother and maternal cells cross the placenta to the fetus. In consideration that this is a discovery of how God created our procreated lives ponder this.

Jesus as a fetus always God/man…cells crossing into the body and residing in the body of Mary and the cells of Mary crossing into the body of Jesus and residing in the living Jesus…even after birth…reconsider the “likeness of sin” and what you believe about from whence it came…Could any of those cells be from a sinful person?

I believe it is part of God’s plan that this was not known in the past and discovered recently so that we could tell Protestants to rethink their Sola Scriptura position and look at what Paul says in Romans.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

What can be known of God can be seen in the world not necessarily in the Bible. Reasoning with the Bible alone leads to fallible error.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: