Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Ginger2]

Don’t you think a Muslim …

Let me give you an example you might better understand

The lens of faith is the “glasses” so to speak that [we] read the Scriptures and come to an understanding of Truth.

The glasses that [Catholics] have are man-made. The glasses [Protestants] have are God-given.

Now, do you think that was an appropriate statement? What do you think would happen if Richard Kastner had said that to you? Just something to think about…

And personally, your comparison of Protestants to Muslims is greatly offensive to me. Just want you to be aware as I am certain you did not mean to offend, insult or degrade anyone with your comments.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me give you an example you might better understand

Now, do you think that was an appropriate statement? What do you think would happen if Richard Kastner had said that to you? Just something to think about…

Well, Ginger, those types of comments against Catholics have been the norm for me since I started with apologetics. I take them with a grain of salt and simply try to explain/defend the reason for the hope that I have in me.

And personally, your comparison of Protestants to Muslims is greatly offensive to me. Just want you to be aware as I am certain you did not mean to offend, insult or degrade anyone with your comments.

Ah. As I typed my above analogy I was cautiously optimistic that you wouldn’t go there with “How dare you compare me to a Muslim!”, but, alas, I was wrong to be that optimistic.

It seems you have an inability to understand analogies.

If I say a Christmas tree is to an ornament as a earlobe is to an earring, I am not saying that a Christmas tree is an earlobe. They are alike ONLY as analogs. Someone who says, “How dare you compare my Christmas tree to an earlobe!” or “My dear, my earlobe is NOT a Christmas tree!” is clearly demonstrating a deficiency in abstract thinking ability.

 

[Ginger2]

When you make a comment and then say:

have been the norm…

after that very comment is rewritten switching “Catholics” and “Protestants” around…well, if you can’t see that it is just as bad to say it to Protestants as it is to say it to Catholics, then it is pointless for us to continue any sort of discourse.

I mean, really! You think it is appropriate to say that to others, but acknowledge you wouldn’t like it said to you?

Enjoy the rest of your day

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I am simply aghast that you would say this, Richard. Do you not know about His enemies doing something far more egregious than “bad mouthing” one of His own? They *crucified *him, yes?

And you find this in your Bible, I presume?

To show that his servants must take up their cross and follow him.

Yes, it is. My informed and educated private interpretation.

The lens of faith is the “glasses” so to speak that you read the Scriptures and come to an understanding of Truth. The glasses that you have are man-made. The glasses Catholics have are God-given.

This whole discussion is way off topic and anyhow how am I supposed to dialogue with someone who is wearing infallible God given glasses. So I guess I’ll say goodby.

 

[PRmerger]

I mean, really! You think it is appropriate to say that to others, but acknowledge you wouldn’t like it said to you?

I’m not sure how you read into my comment that I acknowledge that I “wouldn’t like it said to” me.

I have no emotion attached to that type of comment whatsoever.

In fact, I said I take it with a grain of salt and then gave this little emoticon: which means in this context: “I couldn’t care less”.

This frowny face or this mad face would have been the indicator that I had negative emotions attached to those types of comments.

 

[PRmerger]

This whole discussion is way off topic and anyhow how am I supposed to dialogue with someone who is wearing infallible God given glasses. So I guess I’ll say goodby.

I am sad that you feel you cannot continue to proffer arguments and reasons for the hope you have in you.

And, were you to be in a dialogue with a Muslim and you told him, “There is no way to Allah/God except through Jesus Christ” he might react with similar disgust. He also might take his ball and go home saying, “Well, how am I supposed to dialogue with someone who thinks he’s got the only version of the Truth. Buh-bye!” This would be sad indeed and a missed opportunity for this Muslim to hear the truth. But you would have done *nothing *wrong except proclaim the Truth.

 

[Marybeloved]

This whole discussion is way off topic and anyhow how am I supposed to dialogue with someone who is wearing infallible God given glasses. So I guess I’ll say goodby.

Are you saying that you will not converse with PRmerger unless she denies her own faith on infallibility first?

And this whole: "I’m leaving now, I don’t like that you expose the weaknesses of all my arguments" attitude is very, very typical among Protestants in debate, eh? At least that’s what I notice!- It’s happened at least 4/5 times on this thread alone, I tell ya .

 

[Nicea325]

The word scripture means written word. It’s were we get the word script which means writing and if you read the rest of Jn.5 you will see that Jesus is talking about what Moses WROTE about Him.
Jn.5
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So, in what other way do you think that we recieve the word of God?

Yes scripture means written,but how do you conclude God’s Words are binded merely to WRITTEN WORDS?

 

[Ginger2]

Are you saying that you will not converse with PRmerger unless she denies her own faith on infallibility first?

And this whole: "I’m leaving now, I don’t like that you expose the weaknesses of all my arguments" attitude is very, very typical among Protestants in debate, eh? At least that’s what I notice!- It’s happened at least 4/5 times on this thread alone, I tell ya .

Are you having a bad day? I have to believe that is the only reason you would post this.

A question I like to ask myself before saying something is: what profit will be gained from my comments? No matter how true I think it is, I believe it is good to ask that question. Altho, I must admit, I sometimes forget…

Did you consider what good contribution the above post was going to bring to God’s kingdom… or this forum?

Sometimes I decide to leave because I still have to work for a living and this forum sucks up waaaay too much time or because I don’t feel I have anything more to add or just because someone is annoying me and I don’t have to subject myself to that.

Yet, this same accusation keeps popping up.

If Richard doesn’t feel there is anything more he can contribute or nothing more of profit to be gained in staying, then it is wise for him to lead - that too, is a biblical concept.

I am hoping that this post will help others to think twice before making unfounded and unprofitable.accusations about the motives of others.

Good n ight Marybeloved, may you get a good night’s sleep and wake rested and ready for a new day tomorrow.

 

[PRmerger]

Sometimes I decide to leave because I still have to work for a living and this forum sucks up waaaay too much time or because I don’t feel I have anything more to add or just because someone is annoying me and I don’t have to subject myself to that.

Yet, this same accusation keeps popping up.

Oh! No one is accusing anyone of what you claim. We all are busy and have lives outside the forum. If a poster doesn’t post because she’s got to catch up on things, well,

The “I’m taking my ball and going home!” paradigm is the transparent response that actually means, “I cannot refute your argument so I’m saying buh-bye!”

Busy? Fine.
Taking your ball and going home? Wah wah!

 

[stevekehl]

I’m a little disappointed. I was looking forward to joining this debate, but I see it has degenerated into name calling and “how dare you,” and “I’m leaving.”
Just to get the Catholics re-invigorated, I believe that Mary was a sinner, and a great woman. I’ve seen Romans 30 and Luke 1, how about
1John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and his message isn’t in our hearts.
This from the apostle who took care of Mary after Jesus death. If anyone would have written about Mary’s sinlessness it would have been him. Or …
Galatians 3:22 But the Scriptures say that sin controls everyone, so that God’s promises will be for anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ.
People have argued, can God’s presence be carried by an imperfect person? Yes it can, God’s presence is in every Christian.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit present in every Christian is no less God than Jesus. In fact, Jesus said His followers were better off with the Holy Spirit than with Him.
John 16:7 But I am telling you the truth: it is better for you that I go away, because if I do not go, the Helper will not come to you. But if I do go away, then I will send him to you.
It was the Holy Spirit which placed Jesus in Mary’s womb.
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Whatever you believe, Mary’s sinlessness has no effect on our salvation. Feel free to believe in her perfection if you want.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m a little disappointed. I was looking forward to joining this debate, but I see it has degenerated into name calling and “how dare you,” and “I’m leaving.”

:sad_yes:

But it’s always nice when someone new comes to play.

Just to get the Catholics re-invigorated, I believe that Mary was a sinner, and a great woman. I’ve seen Romans 30 and Luke 1, how about
1John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and his message isn’t in our hearts.

Do you think that a 31 year old man with mental retardation has sinned?
What about that cute little 2 year old sitting new to you in the pews? Has she sinned?

I say that that they have *not *sinned, and I also say that I am not contradicting Scripture when I proclaim this.

This from the apostle who took care of Mary after Jesus death. If anyone would have written about Mary’s sinlessness it would have been him.

Or, one could argue that if anyone could have stated that Mary did sin, it would have been in the Bible, no?

Or …
Galatians 3:22 But the Scriptures say that sin controls everyone, so that God’s promises will be for anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ.

And who can doubt that we all feel the effects of sin, but that is different from saying that Mary sinned.

People have argued, can God’s presence be carried by an imperfect person? Yes it can, God’s presence is in every Christian.

Yes, I’ve always found that to be an inadequate argument. Actually, what the Catholic Church states is not that Jesus couldn’t have come into a sinful woman (sorry about the double negative!), but that it was FITTING that he dwelled within a perfect vessel. Wasn’t it St. Augustine who said something like, “He who the world could not contain was contained in a mother’s womb.”

Fitting, but not required, is the Catholic argument.

 

[PRmerger]

Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit present in every Christian is no less God than Jesus. In fact, Jesus said His followers were better off with the Holy Spirit than with Him.

Amen! This is quite consonant with Catholic teaching, steve.

John 16:7 But I am telling you the truth: it is better for you that I go away, because if I do not go, the Helper will not come to you. But if I do go away, then I will send him to you.

Again, amen!

It was the Holy Spirit which placed Jesus in Mary’s womb.
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Amen, x3!

Whatever you believe, Mary’s sinlessness has no effect on our salvation. Feel free to believe in her perfection if you want.

Each and every dogma about Mary only serves to heighten and enhance our understanding of Her Son.

Thus, if one were to be arguing for the divinity of Christ with, say, a Muslim, which presents a greater picture of His Divine Sonship: having a perfect vessel which carried him for 9 months, or having a person, sinful just like the mother of Mohammad?

To me, it seems clear that arguing for Mary’s sinlessness argues for Jesus’ divinity. It is way easier to evangelize a Muslim if one presents the Catholic dogma to him rather than the Protestant version.

 

[pablope]

I’m a little disappointed. I was looking forward to joining this debate, but I see it has degenerated into name calling and “how dare you,” and “I’m leaving.”

Just to get the Catholics re-invigorated, I believe that Mary was a sinner, and a great woman. I’ve seen Romans 30 and Luke 1, how about
1John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and his message isn’t in our hearts.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m a little disappointed. I was looking forward to joining this debate, but I see it has degenerated into name calling and “how dare you,” and “I’m leaving.”
Just to get the Catholics re-invigorated, I believe that Mary was a sinner, and a great woman. I’ve seen Romans 30 and Luke 1, how about
1John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and his message isn’t in our hearts.
This from the apostle who took care of Mary after Jesus death. If anyone would have written about Mary’s sinlessness it would have been him. Or …
Galatians 3:22 But the Scriptures say that sin controls everyone, so that God’s promises will be for anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ.
People have argued, can God’s presence be carried by an imperfect person? Yes it can, God’s presence is in every Christian.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit present in every Christian is no less God than Jesus. In fact, Jesus said His followers were better off with the Holy Spirit than with Him.
John 16:7 But I am telling you the truth: it is better for you that I go away, because if I do not go, the Helper will not come to you. But if I do go away, then I will send him to you.
It was the Holy Spirit which placed Jesus in Mary’s womb.
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Whatever you believe, Mary’s sinlessness has no effect on our salvation. Feel free to believe in her perfection if you want.

Yay! Hopefully, this can occupy us for at least 10 more pages !

For starters, Steve, consider that the gospels were not written to tell us about Mary, but chiefly about Christ’s mission- They are biographies of Christ and mention our Lady and others only in so far as they feature in his life and are not about her or anyone else- That’s the express purpose for writing the gospels by the Church, per the gospel testimonies themselves. They also concentrate on Christ’s life with the witnesses (apostles) and his public self-revelation to Israel, which we call his public ministry- His mother was very much in the background (as she should have been) at this time.

We however have the Apostolic tradition which shows that from very very early on, Christians had regarded Mary only as sinless- There’s no diversity of opinions about this at the time as far as I can tell.

Peace!

 

[gerhardc]

stevekehl;8498763:

I’m a little disappointed. I was looking forward to joining this debate, but I see it has degenerated into name calling and “how dare you,” and “I’m leaving.”

And you get these from reading three verses from the Bible, written and compiled by Catholics, for Catholics…and it is supposed to contradict Catholics?

Just because it does not say it…then your conclusion is Mary sinned? Then it is private interpretation? And who revealed it to you? The HS?

John himself admits there are many things he did not write…so there is a possibility this is one item he did not need to write about…since it was already a known fact.

Keep in mind, what was written was not to extract doctrine.

That is why Mary was conceived without original sin…so that she was not controlled by sin.

And how do you know that? So you know more than God in what He wants to do…and you can decide for God what is fitting and not?

And how do you know that Mary is not in God’s plan of salvation? So, you are going to tell God what to do again?

Then why do protestants have a heartache with this? The attacks on Mary come mostly from protestants.

I have stated before that I’m not batting for the Protestants. Still, I think I’m getting to understand some of the mindset of some Catholic participants here: agree withem and the reply is: “your answer is very Catholic, well done”. Disagree with them and the answer is “obviously you are quite diluded - no-one can differ from the official Catholic movement’s interpretation”. This is so because one day, way back in the 4th century a man, referred to by some as the Pope, whilst not himself present when the books of the Bible were decided, and whilst not having arranged the forum during which it was decided (a pagan Emperor did so instead (being baptized only on his death bed)), proclaimed the official version of the Bible and also that the leaders of his movement were infallible in their understanding of it. Because he proclaimed this to be true, it has to be true, right? Why? Because he said so. Crazy. Make a statement that denies official doctrine and the answer is “who told you, the HS? How do you know you heard Him?”. And this on the basis of another of the same Catholic movement claiming that his interpretation from the HS led to the doctrine of succession, where the office of higher understanding is passed down upon democratic vote - sometimes taking days to decide. Crazy and actually quite entertaining!

Then the vehement retribution through many questions or even statements while never satisfied with the answers given claiming the Catholic movement’s superior understanding because it has managed to retain the same brand name over many centuries. Substance over form? No, that never springs to mind. As long as the membership card looks the same and they all agree to officially agree with the one who sits at the top. Official disagreement does not exist. Only unofficial disagreement. Indeed, very entertaining.

Experiential knowledge of spiritual truths? No, not really. Just more of the same philosophy and codes handed down over centuries mixed with a couple of Latin words just to make it sound official. Hit a nerve and see how quickly Mother Theresa’s vitues (what selfless work she has done) fly out the window. Entertaining? Yes. Troubling? Yes, but sad as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Experiential knowledge of spiritual truths? No, not really.

Exactly. “No, not really”. That’s not a qualified no, but definitely NOT the definer of truth.

For what that sets you up for is anyone can claim that they experienced something profound–even in some sort of pagan ceremony–and by your criterion, that makes it a way to know God.

The Catholic position is that there is only One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord. Jesus is the only way to the Father.

 

[PRmerger]

Still, I think I’m getting to understand some of the mindset of some Catholic participants here: agree withem and the reply is: “your answer is very Catholic, well done”. Disagree with them and the answer is “obviously you are quite diluded - no-one can differ from the official Catholic movement’s interpretation”.

The arena of this discussion is a forum, gerhard. That means that, naturally, one person posits her position, and if someone disagrees, he proffers his position. When someone offers an argument that agrees with her, especially if it’s from her opponent (for lack of a better term), it important to show that this opponent’s argument is consonant with her position.

It’s curious to me that you would come to a forum, which, by its very nature is about offering different arguments, then object to the nature of a forum.

 

[PRmerger]

This is so because one day, way back in the 4th century a man, referred to by some as the Pope, whilst not himself present when the books of the Bible were decided, and whilst not having arranged the forum during which it was decided (a pagan Emperor did so instead (being baptized only on his death bed)), proclaimed the official version of the Bible and also that the leaders of his movement were infallible in their understanding of it. Because he proclaimed this to be true, it has to be true, right?

Actually, it was because the bishops of the Catholic Church, in union with the Pope, discerned it to be theopneustos.

And as you seem to have agreed with their decision, how is it that you are objecting to it?

Why? Because he said so. Crazy.

And how is that any different than your criterion, which is, “I know it by faith.*”

You get to use that criterion, but they don’t?

**NB: that is actually not the criterion that the Catholic bishops used to discern what was theopneustos although it seems that this is what gerhard is proposing they used. And again, if that was his own criterion for discerning that Philemon was inspired, how can he object to the Catholic bishops doing the same?

 

[Marybeloved]

pablope;8498943:

I have stated before that I’m not batting for the Protestants. Still, I think I’m getting to understand some of the mindset of some Catholic participants here: agree withem and the reply is: “your answer is very Catholic, well done”. Disagree with them and the answer is “obviously you are quite diluded - no-one can differ from the official Catholic movement’s interpretation”. This is so because one day, way back in the 4th century a man, referred to by some as the Pope, whilst not himself present when the books of the Bible were decided, and whilst not having arranged the forum during which it was decided (a pagan Emperor did so instead (being baptized only on his death bed)), proclaimed the official version of the Bible and also that the leaders of his movement were infallible in their understanding of it. Because he proclaimed this to be true, it has to be true, right? Why? Because he said so. Crazy. Make a statement that denies official doctrine and the answer is “who told you, the HS? How do you know you heard Him?”. And this on the basis of another of the same Catholic movement claiming that his interpretation from the HS led to the doctrine of succession, where the office of higher understanding is passed down upon democratic vote - sometimes taking days to decide. Crazy and actually quite entertaining!

Then the vehement retribution through many questions or even statements while never satisfied with the answers given claiming the Catholic movement’s superior understanding because it has managed to retain the same brand name over many centuries. Substance over form? No, that never springs to mind. As long as the membership card looks the same and they all agree to officially agree with the one who sits at the top. Official disagreement does not exist. Only unofficial disagreement. Indeed, very entertaining.

Experiential knowledge of spiritual truths? No, not really. Just more of the same philosophy and codes handed down over centuries mixed with a couple of Latin words just to make it sound official. Hit a nerve and see how quickly Mother Theresa’s vitues (what selfless work she has done) fly out the window. Entertaining? Yes. Troubling? Yes, but sad as well.

Welcome back, Gerhard- I see you’ve brought a whole bag of explanations for failing to answer direct questions or refuting challenges to your positions, and a neat little theory about our approach here, too!

Let’ me return the favor and show you your own approach for comparison, shall we?

Step1- Make a statement hoping that everyone will take it at face value.
Step2- When the Statement is exposed as untrue/baseless/unreasonable by difficult questions (from the perspective of your earlier assertions) ,and/or reasoned challenges, bring up a whole other issue, hoping that your earlier assertions will be allowed to slide into oblivion.
Step3- When that does not work, pretend to have already answered the queries before and refer others to “my former posts”.
Step4- When that does not work, suddenly lose the ability to understand simple, direct, clear questions.
Step5- When that still does not work, and it begins to become obvious that there’s simply no way around addressing the issues directly, and that the alternatives are to run off or admit to the errors of your former assertions, begin feigning indignation and mocking positions that you’ve as yet failed to refute; It goes something like: “Oh, how crazy! How shocking! How can you believe that? Oh my, oh my, oh my!!” etc etc
Step6- When that still does not work, you realize that you’re beginning to look dishonest to readers, start attacking the big bad “many questions” put to you and the meanies who just don’t want to understand- Just make sure that you never actually answer the questions !
Step7- When all that fails and no more strategies remain, complain with righteous indignation and announce that you’re stomping off due to the intolerable environment, and cut off engagement- Of course, you must remember never to actually answer the questions !
Step8- Wait a while and return- Then get in your soap box about how terribly you were treated with the big bad “many questions” that you never answered and the arguments you never refuted, and the meanies who wouldn’t take ungrounded assertions at face value.

Peace!