Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Frankk]

Coptic, you are right! I think there are currently over 30,000 protestant denominations.

I also wonder how Sola Scriptura was supposed to work when the vast majority of people >90%) were unable to read? Individuals must have relied on other people to read and interpret the Bible for them.

The thousands of Protestant denominations each have their own interpretation of the Bible – usually the New Testament – that varies from every other denomination in at least one doctrine or practice, which proves the fallacy of private interpretation.

 

[Frankk]

Coptic, you are right! I think there are currently over 30,000 protestant denominations.

I also wonder how Sola Scriptura was supposed to work when the vast majority of people >90%) were unable to read? Individuals must have relied on other people to read and interpret the Bible for them.

The thousands of Protestant denominations each have their own interpretation of the Bible – usually the New Testament – that varies from every other denomination in at least one doctrine or practice, which proves the fallacy of private interpretation.

 

[Ginger2]

I’m confused. You trust that the CC got it right about the 2 wills of Christ, the Trinity, the doctrine of original sin, all of which are not explicitly taught in the bible, …

That’s not entirely accurate I I “trust” the cc got it right, because I can clearly see they agree with what is written in Scriptures. So it’s not a matter of trusting the cc, but a matter of believing the Word of God.

As for the assumptiom, it makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not. My objection is to those who have, in the past, told me I must believe it or I risk eternal damnation.

Mary’s “assumption” is really irrelevent, imo, as it does not make any difference to the Gospel of Christ. It doesn’t teach us anything we didn’t already know from reading the Scriptures.

However, to insist I believe something without testing it against what is written, is asking me to directly disobey God, who has warned us “n ot to believe” on appearances or what makes sense to the human mind, but to test everything.

Ginger

 

[guywithquestion]

Now can your Preacher claim to speak in the voice of GOD yes or no?

A preacher is usually not set apart from their congregation. What a preacher is, is someone who guides and leads. Any person can hear the voice of God, just as much as a pope can.

What I think Ginger2 is saying is that Catholics believe more in the Pope than in themselves.

I think God speaks to everyone, Catholic, Christian, or whatever. In your own words, God said that when they speak in HIS name they CANNOT lie, they MUST speak the truth.

I am sure you or I is allowed to speak with the authority of a Christian, since Christ died for our sins right? So why is the pope given more authority over you? Did not God chose you as well?

I agree with Ginger2 in which I do not clearly see the advantages of having a pope. He is as much of a man as we are. You guys claim that Protestantism is false because we have so many different denominations, but you completely ignore the fact that Catholicism is over 2000 years old, with millions if not billions of people giving their different (name removed by moderator)ut and what not. And even the Catholic Church was wrong and admitted their mistakes. So I dont need to place my trust in a man that is a sinner just as I am, only in Christ himself.

Frankk:

I also wonder how Sola Scriptura was supposed to work when the vast majority of people >90%) were unable to read? Individuals must have relied on other people to read and interpret the Bible for them.

I think you missed the part where the Catholic Church forbid people from reading the bible on their own.

 

[Ginger2]

Next please do not blame ME or others in the CHURCH for the people who refuse to live out their faith.

Because when non-Catholics Christian] deny the truth does that make it not the truth. If so then Judas betraying Jesus is the fault of Jesus and the other Apostles also. And makes their truth not valid then because Judas refused to accept it

SO THINK rinnie], Please think what you are saying, …

 

[Ginger2]

So clear that since 1600 there have been the evolution into Protestant thought that includes the Jehovah Witness, 7th Day Adventist, Mormon, Oneness Pentacostal and more. The Catholic Church has seen some division but not quite like these and the divisions are seen as over issues that do not deny the Eucharist and other Sacraments.

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Apostles didn’t always understand everything - even when Jesus explained it. Are you suggesting the pope can do better?

The only Apostle who understood all in an instant was Paul - and he was not taught by Peter or any other Apostle, but by Christ Jesus.

So, I am not convinced I need your pope to understand the Scriptures.

 

[Marybeloved]

That’s not entirely accurate I I “trust” the cc got it right, because I can clearly see they agree with what is written in Scriptures. So it’s not a matter of trusting the cc, but a matter of believing the Word of God…However, to insist I believe something without testing it against what is written, is asking me to directly disobey God, who has warned us “n ot to believe” on appearances or what makes sense to the human mind, but to test everything.

Good, so Ginger, tell us which part of scripture you use to "test" whether the Catholic Church got the right books of the New Testament or not.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Please stick to the OP please…

 

[Marybeloved]

That’s not entirely accurate I I “trust” the cc got it right, because I can clearly see they agree with what is written in Scriptures. So it’s not a matter of trusting the cc, but a matter of believing the Word of God.

However, to insist I believe something without testing it against what is written, is asking me to directly disobey God, who has warned us “not to believe” on appearances or what makes sense to the human mind, but to test everything.

I would say that to the contrary, you do already trust the CC on a much more fundamental issue than Our Lady’s assumption or even her Holiness- The 27 books of the New Testament- why not just trust her on Mary’s condition as well? Besides, by your own criteria, if you throw out Mary’s assumption, you’ll have to throw out the entire New Testament, as well! Which part of scripture can you use to test the CC decision in that regard? I don’t see how you can have it both ways…The Church can be trusted on the scriptures but about Mary’s sinlessness, (or assumption) no way! :shrug:This is very inconsistent.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Mary,
That’s an intriguing story. If you could locate the Youtube video I’d like to watch it. Feel free to PM me with it.

Mary is my mother, as she is everyone’s mother. Theotokos, Mother of God, “all nations will call me blessed,” our Blessed Mother.

I saw something on a you-tube debate between Muslims and Evangelical Christians, that demonstrated how twisted questioning Mary’s holiness really is in the grand scheme of things. I believe it was Shadine vs Sami, “Who was Jesus?” or something like that- Part of an Easter weekend series of debates between Muslims and Christians (Who were only evangelicals). This thing really stuck out, How absurd it is for Christians to question Mary’s Holiness.

The Muslim, in trying to prove that Jesus could not have been God sighted Mary’s fulfilling the Mosaic Law of uncleanliness after child-birth, in the Gospels. The Muslim kept saying, **“How can God make anything unclean??? God?? Make the woman unclean by dwelling in her???” The Christians did not get it, of course, but the Muslim was absolutely correct and what he said is clear to anyone who truly, really ponders the fact that God, YHWH, The Great I AM, Holiness itself came into Mary, took flesh from her and dwelt in her for nine months!!- God makes clean!!! God makes Holy, God cannot enter, much less dwell in an unclean abode, God cannot live in sin for nine months. If only Protestants could ponder God’s absolute and transcendent holiness with reverential fear like even the Muslims seem to be able to do:shrug:.

People wonder at Catholic (even Orthodox) veneration of Mary, and say… But she was just a sinner! An ordinary woman! Say that to the Jews about the Temple at Jerusalem, About the Holy of Holies, and About the Ark of the Covenant- Say to them, But that’ was just an ordinary building of wood and stone, That inside was just another room, That Ark only just a box!.…If you can begin to comprehend the Jewish Horror at this, you may perhaps begin to comprehend why Catholics think it nothing short of insanity to call God’s literal Temple, His Holy of Holies and His Ark of the Covenant, just another sinner.

If you want Biblical proof for the veneration of the Virgin Mary, please undertake a nice, long, prayerful study of the place and the holiness of The Ark, The Holy of Holies and The Temple, in the heart of the devout Jew- If you really believe that Jesus Christ was YHWH, that he truly came to Mary’s womb as surely as YHWH came to the Holy of Holies, That’s all the evidence you’ll ever need.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Protestants, scripture says:* “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”* Romans 3:23

Meaning that Mary must have been a sinner too…

Scripture says: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners…" Romans 5:19

Meaning that it was the disobedience of just the one man, as opposed to the first man and woman, that many were made sinners.

Those who believe that Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner:

Could it possibly be wrong to interpret Romans 3 to include the woman Mary, the new Eve of creation, as a sinner, if it’s wrong to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 by excluding the first woman from Romans 5?

Please stick to the OP please…

We see in Romans 3 also:

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Yet even here, where it explicitly states “none…no, not one”, that Scripture really isn’t stating that there are no exceptions, but that this is the norm of the human condition. As we see in the Gospel:

5]
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Does Scripture contradict itself? Rest assuredly that it does not. That being said, when a text is taken out of context you end up with a pretext, (which is what often happens when you separate yourself from history, from Sacred Tradition, and from the authority of the Church that Christ established.)

 

[Marybeloved]

As far as Mary’s sinlessness goes, in the OT, God showed extreme care in his specifications and preparations for his dwelling house, it simply had to be extravagant, beautiful, better adorned than anything else in Israel, perfect and also purified and dedicated before the presence of God could descend on/into the Holy of Holies. It was so Holy that one time only in a year the High Priest alone could go into the Holy of Holies (having repented, made a sacrifice and been purified of his own sin) and if he dared go in with sin on his soul, would fall dead instantly upon stepping in!- This was a House in which God’s presence dwelt.

Now, Protestants believe that the same God descended on a woman of sin, took flesh from her and in her, dwelt in her for 9 months while she was still a sinner- when he could not even abide the presence of a single sin in the Holy of Holies? Which one really is the far-fetched belief, here? That God prepared Mary with as much care and specification as he required of the Temple and adorned her as extravagantly as he did the temple before he descended on it, or that God cared for a dwelling House of Wood and Stone far more keenly and lovingly than a living one of flesh that he had also made his own Mother?

 

[Marybeloved]

Mary,
That’s an intriguing story. If you could locate the Youtube video I’d like to watch it. Feel free to PM me with it.

Mary is my mother, as she is everyone’s mother. Theotokos, Mother of God, “all nations will call me blessed,” our Blessed Mother.

Will sure do. I’ll look for it and pm you when I find it.

 

[Frankk]

However, to insist I believe something without testing it against what is written, is asking me to directly disobey God, who has warned us “n ot to believe” on appearances or what makes sense to the human mind, but to test everything.

Ginger

And if you were an illiterate person of the 8th - 19th Century, for example, HOW would you test anything at all?

Surely by now you must be getting glimpses of the huge flaws in what you are saying???

Just to reinforce the point, can you spell out in clear language how a, say, 17th century illiterate Christian could test out something against what is written (your own words)?

 

[Ginger2]

As far as Mary’s sinlessness goes, in the OT, God showed extreme care in his specifications and preparations for his dwelling house, it simply had to be extravagant, beautiful, better adorned than anything else in Israel, perfect and also purified and dedicated before the presence of God could descend on/into the Holy of Holies. It was so Holy that one time only in a year the High Priest alone could go into the Holy of Holies (having repented, made a sacrifice and been purified of his own sin) and if he dared go in with sin on his soul, would fall dead instantly upon stepping in!- This was a House in which God’s presence dwelt. …

Jesus sat and ate with sinners, associuated with prostitutes and tax clloectors, touched people with leprosy,

Jesus’ home is in heaven. He is not living in a woman’s womb. You are confusing his heavenly house with his earthly mission.

It is my opinion that you are creating a picture that you feel is suitable for Jesus when the Bible clearly states Jesus took a lowly position in his time on earth.

Phil 2:7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[a] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Jesus sat and ate with sinners, associuated with prostitutes and tax clloectors, touched people with leprosy,

Jesus’ home is in heaven. He is not living in a woman’s womb. You are confusing his heavenly house with his earthly mission.

It is my opinion that you are creating a picture that you feel is suitable for Jesus when the Bible clearly states Jesus took a lowly position in his time on earth.

Phil 2:7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[a] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

I think Marybeloved was trying to compare the tabernacle of the Old Testament, to that of the New Testament, (Mary). Are you familiar with this. or is this something new to you? Just asking so that I know how to proceed.

 

[joe370]

Ginger2;8458855]That’s not entirely accurate I I “trust” the cc got it right, because I can clearly see they agree with what is written in Scriptures. So it’s not a matter of trusting the cc, but a matter of believing the Word of God.

They didn’t just agree with what is written in Scripture. They decided what would be included in the canon and what would be excluded from the canon at a time when 7 books of the NT, as well as some of the OT books were being questioned as to their authenticity. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that the cc went to the bible to determine what should be in the bible and what should not be in the bible??? Perhaps you could PM me and elaborate, so as not to upset the moderator?

 

[Frankk]

And if you were an illiterate person of the 8th - 19th Century, for example, HOW would you test anything at all?

Surely by now you must be getting glimpses of the huge flaws in what you are saying???

Just to reinforce the point, can you spell out in clear language how a, say, 17th century illiterate Christian could test out something against what is written (your own words)?

Ginger,

How telling it is that you consistently refuse to answer my questions about SS but, instead prefer to argue against points which can never be agreed on - and to which you only have your own opinion with nothing to support it!

 

[Ginger2]

I think Marybeloved was trying to compare the tabernacle of the Old Testament, to that of the New Testament, (Mary). Are you familiar with this. or is this something new to you? Just asking so that I know how to proceed.

Yes I am. I was raised Catholic and have participated in this forum several years. Altho the atmosphere seems a lot more hostile that it used to be.

 

[joe370]

Ginge2r…

Romans 5 also tells us: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners…” Romans 5:19

Genesis 3 tells us that it was that through the disobedience of not just one man, but both the man and the woman

If sola scriptura proponents are to test everything against scripture, without any need of the authority of the church, then surely ant and all sola scriptura proponent has the authoritative right to glean from the preceding passages that it was through one man (and one woman) - that sin entered the world, while another SS proponent has the authoritative right to glean from the preceding passages that it was just through the first man, since Genesis (according to our hypothetical SS proponent) - never says anything close to the following: For just as through the disobedience of the one man (and the one woman) - the many were made sinners. Right?

As a former sola scriptura proponent, if my interpretation of scripture, as I was moved by the holy spirit, was in fact my final authority then didn’t I have the right to interpret those passages to mean that it was only through the one man, (and not the one woman) - if you, as a sola scriptura proponent, have the right to interpret Romans 3 to include Mary, regarding, "all have sinned…?

If so then do you really believe that it was God’s divine plan for ALL Christian to test their private interpretation of scripture against scripture, to determine what is true and what is not, regarding doctrinal truth?