Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[E.E.N.S]

The Gospels reflect the words, actions and circumstances concerning Jesus. This too then is the word of God.

*Non sequitor. * If I wrote you a letter concerning the words, actions and circumstances of Jesus, does that make it the word of God? Should that then also be included in the Bible?

Revelations 1 states that it too is an instruction from God. Thus, His word. We conclude that the NT is the word of God.

Non sequitor. If I wrote a letter that stated that it was an instruction from God, would that make it scripture? Should that then also be included in the Bible?

My goal here, of course, is to show you that your argument for why certain books are, or are not scripture, holds no water. Not so you doubt Scripture, but so that you can come to a better understanding of the Truth.

Pax tecum.

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes, I believe He did.

Yes, again we agree.

This is where we see it differently. You make the point that since the Bible was put together by (Catholic men - bless them! ) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these men plus the men who followed them are incapable of making an error or errors about the interpretation of the Bible. You call it Sacred tradition, which, in addition to the Bible, includes “other sacred writings of the church” and that it relates to infallibility.

We agree that God can use anyone, including Catholic men or a donkey (whoever reads this thread, please follow the discussion and don’t jump to conclusions that ‘all Catholics are being attacked’! Phew!) to achieve what He wants to. But we disagree that if God uses a person (or a donkey) once that his/her sayings/writings/work remains infallible. That’s just not how it is. Ask Peter (the first Pope, no?) who was admonished by Paul for his hypocrisy. Is this not the same Peter who wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter? I think it is and it goes to show that if God uses a person once to do something that is perfect (like putting the Bible together), that person’s subsequent writings are not guaranteed to be of God. This is the problem with “other sacred writings of the church”.

Hello, Gerhard,

See, here is the problem with that line of thinking, Gerhard- You just admitted that the Bible is not the sole infallible authority! More than that, you just admitted that the other infallible authority at least one time in History, is t****he teaching organ of the Church, which we call Magisterium! More than this you just indirectly admitted that an entire 400 years passed before the New Testament was formed- How did those Christians of the first 4/5 centuries know the truth from error?

From this I ask you:

1. Where do you get the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura?
2. On what basis do you accept the Church’s authority to constitute scripture this once and not other times? Do you just pick and choose according to your liking when the authority is infallible or not? How and on what basis do you accept the one decision?
3. What proof is there, that this other infallible authority (the donkey, not scripture) ceased after the one decision? Did it declare that its own authority had come to an end? Did another infallible authority declare that the infallible authority of the donkey had come to an end?

Consider that:

1. Scripture is not the sole infallible authority on truth- This alone should show you that Sola Scriptura is a lie and a man-made invention, but let’s go on,
2. The other infallible authority we can point to consisted of the Catholic Magisterium.
3. This decision was obeyed by the Church, and that is why we all know what we mean by “The New Testament”- The same 27 books in the same order of arrangement. Despite variations in preferences for different books and rejection of others, not just we here now, but the Church of the time knew that the Church was infallible in her proclamations.How is that possible? (I always wonder how many different versions and canons we would have by now, if protestantism had existed at the time, which rejects the authority of the Church to rule on the truths of the faith ).
4. The Church had only ever had and depended on one infallible authority, up until (according to you, Gerhard) the scriptures were codified and declared to be scripture, hundreds of years after the Christian faith had existed on this Earth- Which acceptance of the Church’s infallibility, is the only reason that such a decision (on scripture) could be held to be binding on them all.
5. In this infallible decision, the Church declared those particular writings to be inspired- Nowhere did she say that they were now the infallible guide of truth and not the Church.
6. These Scriptures that the Church chose, themselves speak nowhere of being the sole infallible authority on faith and truth, they do not even speak of being the only source of truth at all, or containing all the truth of faith-let alone being the sole authority/guide on truth. In fact, they point to the Church as being the pillar and foundation of truth. Nowhere do they speak of replacing her before, during or after the New Testament is constituted .

To clarify, as per your own admission, the Bible was not put together by anything else (including Sacred tradition) but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why I trust the Bible and not Sacred tradition.

Yes my friend, I get you- But on what basis do you trust that the Catholic Church was acting infallibly on this one occasion and not others? Where and when did God give it that specific authority and guarantee?

Peace!

 

[pablope]

Those using the term Father David are using the term correct as David was a type and shadow of Jesus the “son of David” that so many cried out.

Good of you, Frank, to recognize this…actually, the use of the word “father” by the Jews means more than what you stated here…some of this Jews would later turn against Jesus.

And so when used in the proper context, the use of father is allowed…so could it be then, that when catholics use the word “father”…it is somehow along this thought? and are not doing what you think they are doing?

Kind of like what Paul is referring to here…

1 Timothy 1:2
Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Timothy 5:1
Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

Philemon 1:10
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: [ESV: “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment.”]

And you missed entirely the other verses…what do you think Jesus is referring to here…

Luke 6:23
[Christ speaking] Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

Matt 23:

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

I must admit that you are doing a diligent search to find fault with my views about calling no man father.

 

[pablope]

It is really not that difficult. Quotes of the original gospels, book of acts, Paul’s letters, etc. were commonly spread and held as legitimate from their beginning. We can construct the entire New Testament from the writings of the early Christian letters and books quoting the New testament books. The only portions of Scripture missing are a few lines from the Apostle John’s 2nd and 3rd letters.

The only controversial book is the Revelation of John. It was voted in by getting two more votes than the Revelation of Peter. The Revelation of John was controversial, some early Christian churches questioned the validity of the Revelation of John.

On the other hand, The book of Barnabas may have been worthy of being included in the NT.

Good Night All,

Aside from Revelation, also disputed were Jude, Hebrews, (forgot which), one of the epistles of John, and I think Peter’s also.

Considered scripture also was the Didache, Shepher of Hermas, Epistle of Clement.

Here is partial list of early writings…and from this list…put yourself in the shoes of a 1st century christian…how were you to know which was supposed to be sripture or not?
earlychristianwritings.com/alphabetical.html

80-140 1 Clement
50-60 1 Corinthians
90-120 1 John
80-110 1 Peter
50-60 1 Thessalonians
100-150 1 Timothy
130-160 2 Clement
50-60 2 Corinthians
90-120 2 John
100-160 2 Peter
80-100 2 Thessalonians
100-150 2 Timothy
90-120 3 John
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
150-200 Andrew, Acts of
160-180 Apollinaris, Claudius
200-210 Apollonius
120-130 Aristides, Apology of
130-150 Aristo of Pella
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
80-120 Barnabas, Epistle of
120-140 Basilides
200-220 Caius
192-202 Clement of Alexandria
50-80 Colossians
170-175 Diatessaron
50-120 Didache
130-200 Diognetus, Epistle of Mathetes to
165-175 Dionysius of Corinth
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
100-160 Ebionites, Gospel of the
70-120 Egerton Gospel
80-150 Egyptians, Gospel of the
80-100 Ephesians
130-160 Epiphanes On Righteousness
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum
50-60 Galatians
175-190 Galen
50-95 Hebrews, Book of
80-150 Hebrews, Gospel of the
165-175 Hegesippus
150-180 Heracleon
100-160 Hermas, Shepherd of
200-230 Hippolytus of Rome
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons
70-100 James, Epistle of
140-170 James, Infancy Gospel of
100-150 James, Secret Book of
150-200 John, Acts of
90-95 John, Apocalypse of
90-120 John, Gospel of
93 Josephus, Flavius
90-120 Jude, Epistle of
150-160 Justin Martyr
165-175 Lucian of Samosata
80-130 Luke, Gospel of
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
130-140 Marcion
65-80 Mark, Gospel of
70-160 Mark, Secret Gospel of
120-180 Mary, Gospel of
80-100 Matthew, Gospel of
110-160 Matthias, Traditions of
185-195 Maximus of Jerusalem
165-175 Melito of Sardis
160-250 Minucius Felix, Octavius of
170-200 Muratorian Canon
120-140 Naassene Fragment
100-160 Nazoreans, Gospel of the
100-200 Odes of Solomon
130-160 Ophite Diagrams
200-250 Origen
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
190-210 Pantaenus

 

[pablope]

Christians decided which books would be included. The only questionable book is the Revelation of John. They felt that they should include one of the apocalyptic books, and the one attributed to Peter was more fantastic than John’s Revelation. Revelation won by two votes and became the last and 66th book of the Bible.

What Catholics assume is that the Church was all Catholic until the reformation. Prior to Constantine we have our roots going back to Jesus also. From Constantine to Pope Leo changes began that started a drift way from the plain and sure pure gospel of Jesus Christ. This is my view.

Actually, if you really study history…the Bible that came out of that vote had 73 books…kind of like what we catholics have today. This was the case till Luther and company came along and started tinkering with the Canon. Till about 1826 or so…Bibles were the same…till a Bible Society, in order to save money on printing costs, decided to not include those 7 OT books in the Bible they were printing. So…this is actually a tradition of man you are following in using a 66 book bible.

Here is a cross reference table…for your further study…which were considered scripture or not in various bishoprics…

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[adrift]

Adrift,
No where in the word of God does it say that the keys of authority as you call it was given to the pope.
Calling my words a false witness when I can back what I say about the word of God with scripture isn’t right either.
I said “she was not divine.”
True witness.

Your are wrong. Peter, our first pope, was given the keys.

And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Do not try the argument that he wasn’t called the Pope. That was a term that developed for the successors of Peter. You are bearing false when you say that Catholics believe Mary is divine. Your “true” witness is a false witness against Catholics. No matter how you twist it you are bearing false witness.

 

[adrift]

Adrift,

On a previous post you said it was my understanding of scripture that did not line up and not the Catholic church.

I do not wish to start another war of sorts but in this you are wrong.

In Matthew 23:9 Jesus said call no man on earth your father for there is one Father in heaven.
I understand this perfectly.
I have never called any man father for there is one Father in heaven. He is Jehovah, God Almighty who gave his only begotten Son that we might be saved.

I am fully aware that many justify calling the local minister father. They will have to answer for that.

In 1 Timothy 4:1-6 we see what Paul commanded Timothy whom he taught the ministry.

[1] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
[2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
[3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
[4] For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
[5] For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
[6] If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

In these points above we see the Catholic church has gone against what Paul taught Timothy.

In these scriptures I know what they mean and am not misinterpreting them.
Neither am I seeking ways to get around them.
I have allowed my children to marry just as my pastor is married.
I eat meats after saying grace.
I do not nor have I ever called any man father.

In these area the Catholic church does go against scripture and not my understanding of scripture.

Thank you for your time but in some areas we are beating a dead horse so to speak and this has nothing to do with whether or not Mary was sinless.
With some of these issues I agree that they are better discussed in another forum.
Where, I do not know yet, but not on this thread.
I do wish to thank everyone for their time though.

It is so funny. You are wrong in all your interpretations.
The whole quote is

But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ"

Yet Jesus sent his apostles to go and teach all nations. Matthew 28:19–20 Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); Doctor is the Latin word for teacher. So now you must stop calling your Dr. dr. right? Mr. and Mrs.are forms of the word “master,” so guess you better stop using that too. You are misunderstanding Jesus words. Read carefully the passage and you will see what Jesus is really condeming the Pharisees for their pride.

You seem to like to pick out scripture as if it is totally unrelated to the rest of scripture. Is that why you dismissed Paul.
I think you should listen to Jesus word

For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

What do you call your parent. Do you address him by his first name? You know the commandment is honor your FATHER and your mother. I would also point out that Jesus after that statment says

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

. You totally do not understand scripture. You are following the teachings of a man.

 

[Marybeloved]

We agree about how the Bible was put together. But we probably disagree about what “church” constitutes.

You probably (I’m making an assumption here) define church as an institution that meets in a building, follows certain official teachings, by-laws and rituals (I don’t mean that in an empty manner) and which has a hierarchy of officials who interpret various writings (including Scripture), formulates codes and tell people what to do in terms of building their relationship with God (I mean to simplify the explanation of church, not to make light of it).

I have no idea what you mean by an institution in a building. I’ll tell you my humble understanding of the church as I’ve been taught and understand it:

The Church is a singular entity, a mystical reality that is at once the body and bride of Christ. The Church began to exist as this mystical reality when God the Holy Spirit came down to us on Pentecost- It’s he who makes us one true body.

The Church is like one human body, per the teaching of st. Paul. The body of the Church is made up of all believers, who are incorporated into the Church by baptism. A true body is dead without the soul/principle of life- And the soul of the Church is God the Holy Spirit who makes us, the mortal, fallible believers into one body, the body of Christ. That’s why he came down- To rule the Church to the end of time, after Christ had ascended. The Apostle tells us that the body is just like a real one- It has different parts doing different functions for the good of the whole. But it is God the Holy Spirit who rules the church- He does not leave his temple (the body) until the consummation of the age. But he is an invisible ruler- How does he proclaim truth? He speaks through the teaching organ- It is because and only because He is the true ruler of the church that this organ of fallible men is prevented from ever proclaiming error- in-spite of themselves!

Catholics find it funny to believe that The Holy Ghost came down to the Church and ruled her only for a time- It’s because our Lord ascended that The Holy Ghost came down- Because No one, not even the Most Blessed Apostles can be trusted to rule the body of Christ or to preserve and disseminate the truth and nothing but the truth; Because Our faith says that Our God is a God who remains with his people- Our Lord was with the Holy Believers until he ascended- They could ask questions and receive answers, there was no danger of deception- but he ascended and they remained almost as orphans, But he had no intention of leaving them orphans but sending them The Paraclete who was to bring them to all truth and who makes them Saints. So God went up and God came down and he remains exactly where he took his abode- His Holy temple of the one body, from where he rules, guides and protects. It’s because of his presence in the body, that we do not doubt the proclamations of fallible, sometimes sinful men, It’s because of his presence that we believe the oral and written teachings of the Apostles (which we call the Apostolic tradition or the sacred tradition); It’s because of his presence that we do not doubt that the entire Apostolic teaching/tradition is preserved; That we don’t doubt the proclamations of those who succeeded them down the ages to the present- even when they themselves are sinful men.

So Yes, the Church is a visible society of believers, but also an invisible supernatural reality as well- The Church includes us, and the departed believers who departed in the rest of Christ: Mary, the Apostles and all the Holy Saints. When we sin mortally, we remain, as the catechism says, in the body but not in the heart.

You probably rely much on the writings of extra-Biblical scholars. I trust the Bible, only. Because we differ on the definition *we will see the **role ***of the church differently.

I rely on the infallible teaching of the holy Spirit in the teaching organ of the church- You see, if I didn’t, I’d have no way of knowing if what I read in the New Testament is scripture . Just look at that daunting list of sacred writings that Brother Pablope provided in post #473- I’d have to go through each one, simple old me, and decide for myself which ones are inspired and which ones are not- ! I wouldn’t even know if God the Holy Spirit guides me, because I wouldn’t know if the teaching about him is even authentic! No, my friend :nope:. I, simple one, put my faith in Holy Mother Church (And thereby in God the Holy Spirit) :yup:.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by gerhardc forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
To clarify, as per your own admission, the Bible was not put together by anything else (including Sacred tradition) but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why I trust the Bible and not Sacred tradition.

Gerhard,

The one Catholic tradition that gives you your bible says that God the Holy Ghost inspired both** Bible and Sacred Tradition**- On what basis do you accept one and not the other?

Yes, indeed the Bible was put together by God- The Scriptures are actually a part of the the sacred tradition which was put together by God- On what basis do you pick and choose parts of it?

Peace!

 

[gerhardc]

Hello, Gerhard,

See, here is the problem with that line of thinking, Gerhard- You just admitted that the Bible is not the sole infallible authority! More than that, you just admitted that the other infallible authority at least one time in History, is t****he teaching organ of the Church, which we call Magisterium! More than this you just indirectly admitted that an entire 400 years passed before the New Testament was formed- How did those Christians of the first 4/5 centuries know the truth from error?

Not sure where you that deduction from, Mary?
I said we agreed that the men who put the Bible together did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I certainly did not say they put the Bible together under the “teaching authority of the church”. Quite the contrary. I have made the point that the “teaching authority of the church” and the guidance of the Holy Spirit has not always been the same thing. Moreover, that the fact that the Spirit used someone or some people to put together the Bible does not guarantee that these very same people were infallible in their subsequent teachings.

What confuses me a little is that you say that the Bible was put together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And then you also (seemingly) say the Bible was put together as a function of the tradition of the church. Knowing that church men over the ages have erred (knowingly and unknowingly) how can you reconcile these different ideas?

 

[Marybeloved]

Not sure where you that deduction from, Mary?
I said we agreed that the men who put the Bible together did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I certainly did not say they put the Bible together under the “teaching authority of the church”. Quite the contrary. I have made the point that the “teaching authority of the church” and the guidance of the Holy Spirit has not always been the same thing. Moreover, that the fact that the Spirit used someone or some people to put together the Bible does not guarantee that these very same people were infallible in their subsequent teachings.

What confuses me a little is that you say that the Bible was put together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And then you also (seemingly) say the Bible was put together as a function of the tradition of the church. Knowing that church men over the ages have erred (knowingly and unknowingly) how can you reconcile these different ideas?

Gerhard,

The deduction is simple- You admitted that God used the people who constituted the scripture- Unless you want to say that you’re not sure about their decision, this also means that you presume that decision to have been infallible (guaranteed from error). These people, you therefore accept, acted as an infallible authority on what constituted scripture- A fundamental matter of faith and truth!. These people were the Catholic Bishops of the World in union with the Pope- This is what we call the Magisterium. So it’s simple: You admit, at least this once, that the Catholic Magisterium was an infallible authority on a fundamental question of truth and faith!

Popes, Bishops, Indeed the Apostles themselves are always capable of grave error (Some more than others ). But never when they are speaking with the Authority of the Church on matters of faith and Morals- Never! Never when they teach the Church on matters of faith and morals- They can be the greatest heretics and sinners (remember your Donkey Analogy), St. Peter was caught red-handed being a hypocrite- But Nothing he taught the Church on faith and morals on the authority he received contains error- That’s the difference.

Peace!

 

[Frankk]

Probably because the title of this thread is Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

Hardly. Although it’s a good attempt at ducking the question. The topic of Mary’s sinlessness is a matter of interpretation and whether you rely solely on scripture or on Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Church as well.

Even those who rely only on scripture differ in their views.

And irony of ironies, Martin Luther ‘founder’ of Sola Scriptura believed in Mary’s sinlessness. He affirmed that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin “from the very moment she began to live”:

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.” (Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, trans. and ed. J. Pelikan. Concordia: St. Louis, Volume 4, 694)

 

[Marybeloved]

Gerhard,

Originally Posted by gerhardc forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
What confuses me a little is that you say that the Bible was put together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And then you also (seemingly) say the Bible was put together as a function of the tradition of the church. Knowing that church men over the ages have erred (knowingly and unknowingly) how can you reconcile these different ideas?

There’s no contradiction there. Perhaps you see one, because you’ve been conditioned to see the bible as a separate entity standing all on its own- That is a fallacy of sola-scriptura which originates from the Protestant Fathers in their desire to remove themselves from the Authority of the Church- It is not the Truth.

Jesus never- Not once commanded any one to write his words, actions or biographies- The Church did not even think to do it for a good several decades after the Ascension. What he commanded was that they go to the World and teach the truth they had gotten from him. The Truth, for the Church of the 1st Century, was not a collection of sacred writings! It was the living witness of the Apostles, this is what is called the Sacred Tradition or the Apostolic tradition. This is all the entire Church relied on. It was from this very tradition that the Gospel accounts were written. This witness was the whole point of Jesus’ walking with and doing with and teaching a small group of trainees in his ministry, rather than over-seeing a dictation of writings. This is what it means to say the Bible is a part of the Apostolic tradition- It is! It is part of the witness that happened to have been put into writing by the Church at some point.

Peace!

 

[gerhardc]

Gerhard,

The deduction is simple- You admitted that God used the people who constituted the scripture- Unless you want to say that you’re not sure about their decision, this also means that you presume that decision to have been infallible (guaranteed from error). These people, you therefore accept, acted as an infallible authority on what constituted scripture- A fundamental matter of faith and truth!. These people were the Catholic Bishops of the World in union with the Pope- This is what we call the Magisterium. So it’s simple: You admit, at least this once, that the Catholic Magisterium was an infallible authority on a fundamental question of truth and faith!

Ok, I think I see what you mean. Essentially, you are saying that the Holy Spirit, by the once-off **use **of the men who put together the Bible as well as the men that succeeded these men, allocated to them an irrevocable authority (which you call “the Church tradition”) to interpret the Bible on His behalf for all time to come. Is that right?

I’m afraid that if that is your understanding it is something hard to believe especially given that, according to your own admission, these very same men and/or their successors, have been subject to error (“some more than others”).

 

[gerhardc]

Gerhard,
There’s no contradiction there. Perhaps you see one, because you’ve been conditioned to see the bible as a separate entity standing all on its own- That is a fallacy of sola-scriptura which originates from the Protestant Fathers in their desire to remove themselves from the Authority of the Church- It is not the Truth.

Jesus never- Not once commanded any one to write his words, actions or biographies- The Church did not even think to do it for a good several decades after the Ascension. What he commanded was that they go to the World and teach the truth they had gotten from him. The Truth, for the Church of the 1st Century, was not a collection of sacred writings! It was the living witness of the Apostles, this is what is called the Sacred Tradition or the Apostolic tradition. This is all the entire Church relied on. It was from this very tradition that the Gospel accounts were written. This witness was the whole point of Jesus’ walking with and doing with and teaching a small group of trainees in his ministry, rather than over-seeing a dictation of writings. This is what it means to say the Bible is a part of the Apostolic tradition- It is! It is part of the witness that happened to have been put into writing by the Church at some point.

Peace!

Thanks Mary, I think I get your point. The difference, probably, in our thinking relates to the idea that the very reason why there was a selection made of apprpriate writings to be contained in the Bible was the fact that so many versions of the Gospel/Truth went around at the time prior to the Bible being put together. The question arose as to which writings that had been part of the church tradition at the time was from God and which were not? In order to separate the wheat from the chaff, church men, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected those writings that were indeed appropriate. This is what we call the Bible. The rest were not deemed fit.

 

[Marybeloved]

Gerhard,

Ok, I think I see what you mean. Essentially, you are saying that the Holy Spirit, by the once-off **use **of the men who put together the Bible as well as the men that succeeded these men, allocated to them an irrevocable authority (which you call “the Church tradition”) to interpret the Bible on His behalf for all time to come. Is that right?

Your formulation is not exactly right, but close enough- I’ll accept it for the purposes of our discussions.

I’m afraid that if that is your understanding it is something hard to believe especially given that, according to your own admission, these very same men and/or their successors, have been subject to error (“some more than others”).

Gerhard, you’re absolutely right- It is very hard to believe!- So is believing that a poor Carpenter from Nazareth was God himself, Or that a man publicly disgraced and defeated, executed in the most ignoble way possible, scourged and hang naked before a jeering mob- was God! Or that this same man resurrected and walked out of his own grave three days later! How unbelievable is that! Yet, here we both are, believers and lovers of this same Lord and this same utterly unbelievable truths. But ‘easy beliefs’ is not exactly the description of Christian faith, is it, my friend?

So it’s very hard to trust these very fallible men and to believe that it is God the Holy Spirit, from deep within the mystical reality of the Church who rules the public declarations of faith and morals that these men make- I grant you that. But it does not mean that it is not true .

Peace!

 

[gerhardc]

I guess you are suggesting that some have truth and some do not?

 

[Marybeloved]

Thanks Mary, I think I get your point. The difference, probably, in our thinking relates to the idea that the very reason why there was a selection made of apprpriate writings to be contained in the Bible was the fact that so many versions of the Gospel/Truth went around at the time prior to the Bible being put together. The question arose as to which writings that had been part of the church tradition at the time was from God and which were not? In order to separate the wheat from the chaff, church men, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected those writings that were indeed appropriate. This is what we call the Bible. The rest were not deemed fit.

Gerhard, You’re partly right. There were some strange heresies that rocked the church in the early centuries- really strange beliefs about fundamental beliefs like God’s nature, Jesus’ nature etc e.g. The fore-father of the Jehovah Witnesses (Arianism). We in the modern world are not the first Christians to witness distortions of Christianity (“liberal Christianity” is one modern example)- You see, Gerhard, the dragon will stop trying when he’s thrown forever in the pit at the judgment- But not a moment before then. That’s why we have God living with us-Thank Goodness; and Thank Jesus for his guarantee (The gates of Hell shall Never Prevail)

But do you know how they were defeated? It was not the codification of the scriptures! No, my friend. The same authority that said “these are the inspired books”, also said “This is the True Nature of God- One Divine nature in three Divine persons” “This is the nature of Christ- Only one Divine person possessing at once two natures and two wills”. That’s how the creeds were formulated- long before the codification of the scriptures. These are the foundations of the entire Christian understanding of our faith and interpretations of the scriptures! This is why you interpret the actions of Christ the way you do and not as the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons do; Or non-Christians who read the same books and think that Jesus never claimed to be God!

You don’t realize it, but you take for granted truths that you’ve been taught directly or imbibed from the presumed beliefs of Christians around you but that are not in the plain reading of scripture, and could not be assumed if you did not already believe them and the Church had not taught them explicitly from the very beginning through the Apostolic tradition. God has guided the Church in spite, sometimes, of the worst possible occupants of the magisterial offices- But it’s not about them, it’s about the Church and the truth. It really is a miracle.

Peace!

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

You answered your own question if you see what you posted.

If Mary were in the same room with you it would appear you are talking to her.

Since Mary is in heaven you are praying to her and asking in prayer that she likewise pray for you.

Now, to end this.
As I said last night when I logged off I am through with conversations sidetracking the issue of Mary being sinless.

Have a good day and may God bless.

As for me I don’t have time today to stay on the computer like I did half the day yesterday.

May God bless.

Yes Frank and that is the point I am trying to get across we are asking Mary to Pray for us. Do Protestants not ask others to pray for them? Does that make them God if they do?

Do you see my point here. Of course we ask the Blessed Mother to pray for us, also ALL of the Saints. But we always ask one another for prayers also.

Did you ever ask anyone to pray for you Frank. What about a close relative that has passed over to the other world and are with God as we speak. Do you ask them to continue to pray for you? Whats the difference if our loved one prays for us in this world or the next?

Is it written that prayers only work in this world? If so I missed them. Prayers are good for everyone. Jesus prayed for Peter. Paul asked for us all to pray for him.

Just wanted to make the point that just because we ask the Blessed Mother to pray for us does not mean we are by no way putting her before her SON. She prayes to God just like us.

 

[rinnie]

Frank I am not sidetracking the question by the way, that Mary is sinless. I was just addressing your question that when we ask the Blessed Mother to pray for us, we KNOW she does not have any power that is not given to her from her SON.

But that is the Point, Mary’s Prayers do have Power, because she was faithful to God.

Frank do you believe the word of God, the bible? That is Sacred Scripture, how can you believe every word that the Church wrote in Sacred Scripture, and then turn around and deny Sacred Tradition?

I mean if they are going to tell the entire truth on one, why lie on the other. Do you not realize they never HAD to write anything down. Where did God every say write this down?

God said GO out and PREACH and TEACH the good news. The Sacred and Oral word of God were taught LONG before the bible.

Did you know the real reason the bible was even written because it was demanded long after by the Protestant Church. So tell me why would we need the bible today, if we did not need it 2000 years ago.

Where does Jesus ever say to READ THE BIBLE? But we do hear we must attemd Mass don’t we. Why do you think that is so?

Well the point is the Church is who gave us the word of God, and the word of God is that the Blessed Mother was free from sin. How can you believe ONE thing they say and deny another?

You accept the Trinity do you not? why that and not other teachings? Just wondering.