Play by Play v. Color Commentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Of course the scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But God didn’t just come down and lay the completed bible on a table, did He? He worked through men who wrote under his inspiration, and guided his Church to include those scriptures and only those scriptures which were inspired.

In fact, Jesus ascended into heaven, leaving behind no instructions for any of his followers to write anything. He told them, rather, to go and preach to the whole world, which they did.

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the new testament scriptures were assembled by the Catholic Church. So the Church is responsible for the table of contents, working as always under the guidance of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
As I have said before, the Romans were in power at the time so the HS used them. If it were the Greeks or the Chinese, the HS would have used them just the same.
 
newbie1234 said:
Do you think only catholics believe in original sin?
Most believers who study the bible will understand original sin.
Click to expand...
That’s news to me.

You may want to ask around. I don’t think it’s quite as widespread as you think.
 
NotWorthy said:
That’s news to me.

You may want to ask around. I don’t think it’s quite as widespread as you think.
Click to expand...
I know for me and my church and any church I ever belonged to, original sin was a core belief.
 
newbie1234 said:
As I have said before, the Romans were in power at the time so the HS used them. If it were the Greeks or the Chinese, the HS would have used them just the same.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Romans were in power, and the Pax Romana, in spite of various cruelties, ensured that the gospel could be preached. That may be what is meant by Christ coming in the “fullness of time.”

Yet, before ascending into heaven, Jesus did not leave it all to the Holy Spirit, but established His Church on earth, to continue preaching and to pass on the deposit of faith.
 
Reformed1 said:
Randy,

You do realize that there are quite a few catholics (even apologists) who would certainly disagree with your above statement.

Afterall, according to you guys it is the magesterium that interprets scripture, decides the canon, and decides what is and what isn’t in the bounds of “apostolic tradition”.

I have no idea how you can claim prima scriptura.
Click to expand...
Recognized the canon, Reformed1, recognized. The Church had no authority to declare a book inspired if it really wasn’t. You know that. 🙂

Beyond that, you may be rigtht, and I’m reflecting on this now. Many converts to Catholicism (notably Hahn, Akin, Ray) are prima scriptura supporters - probably due to their evangelical roots. My OP was influenced by reading Jimmy Akin on this subject. I may change my mind.

However, commenting on the same OP in another forum, another Catholic wrote:
The Church does not hold to prima scriptura, a view popular with some apologists such as Dr. Scott Hahn. Instead, Scripture and Tradition are interconnected parts that lead to a single truth. Each serves the common good of spreading the Gospel and bringing men to Christ and Christ to men via the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

Prima scripturists hold that because the OT existed first, it proves that scripture holds the place of primacy. This, however, is not necessarily as it appears. Though the OT was physically written before Pentecost occurred, the OT was at the service of the Christian Church to prove the veracity of Christ’s mission and proofs of divinity. It took the living witness of the Church to bring this truth to mankind.

There are many reasons to conclude that the Church as repository of Christ’s truth and the true faith is actually prime. There was no easy means for the scriptures to be written and disseminated until about 1400 years after Christ died, rose and ascended into Heaven. The Bible didn’t exist in a canonically settled form until the Church gave it one around 400 AD. Scripture and Tradition are both so bound to one another that separating them deforms them, and without the guidance of the Magisterium, sola scriptura leads to protestantism and sola traditio leads to radical tradtionalism, with its extreme logical end being sedevacantism.

In The Shepherd of Hermes, the patriarch was shown a very ancient woman by an angel. When the angel asked him to identify her, the man said she was a sybil. The angel replied that, no, she was the first thing ever created and the universe was created after her: She was the Church, the first idea of a creature existing in God’s Mind. (The Son and Holy Spirit don’t count, as they’re not creatures and they were of course first of all.) This is a private revelation and therefore not binding on the whole of Christianity, but it provides some real food for thought.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
newbie1234 said:
So if you read matt11:11 was John the Baptist born sinless also. Since there was none born of woman greater than he?
Click to expand...
This is purely speculative but entirely possible for two reasons.

First, anything is possible for God.

Second, note what the scriptures say:
“In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:5-6)
“Observing all of the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly”? How could someone fulfill the Law blamelessly if they were not sinless? If John’s parents were blameless, would John be born without original sin, also?

Now, you mention John in order to pull down Mary. But now, I’m mentioning John parents to suggest that perhaps they were also conceived without sin which enabled them to fulfill the law blamelessly and to enable their son, John, to be born without original sin just as Mary was born without original sin so that she might be worthy to bear the Son of God.

If Catholic declare sinlessness for Mary in honor of Jesus, and you declare John the Baptist to be even greater citing Jesus own words in this regard, then shouldn’t you at least consider the possibility that God did something similar to the Immaculate Conception for John?

Just thinking out loud here…
 
newbie1234 said:
The Vulgate translation which uses the term ‘full of grace’ Lk1:28 is misinterpreted. My three bibles kjv,nkjv amplified,and concordance use’highly favored one’
The misinterpretation leads the church into the Immaculate Conception. Which is erroneous.
Click to expand...
St. Jerome had access to texts in translating the bible that are long gone. The vulgate is a much closer translation than anyone will ever have today.

Those are all protestant books, no wonder they reject the Immaculate Conception.
 
John the Baptist Never sinned.

Oh, sure, you all laughed when I said it, but here’s a full-length article on a website:

catholicplanet.com/future/John-Baptist.htm

Note that St. Catherine of Siena also believed that John the Baptist never sinned.
"And once more I gave you the light to see your true path, namely, humiliation of yourself, and you answered the Devil with these words: ‘Wretch that I am, John the Baptist never sinned and was sanctified in his mother’s womb. And I have committed so many sins, and have hardly begun to know them with grief and true contrition, seeing who God is, who is offended by me, and who I am, who offend Him.’ "
Click to expand...
 
newbie1234 said:
Do you think only catholics believe in original sin?
Most believers who study the bible will understand original sin.
Click to expand...
Most perhaps, but not all. My dad is pretty wishy-washy on the fact that we all have the stain of original sin. I, the Catholic, keep trying to explain it to him.
 
Randy_Carson said:
John the Baptist Never sinned.

Oh, sure, you all laughed when I said it, but here’s a full-length article on a website:

catholicplanet.com/future/John-Baptist.htm

Note that St. Catherine of Siena also believed that John the Baptist never sinned.
Click to expand...
Truly, “all have sinned” doesn’t mean “all have sinned”. “No one is righteous” doesn’t mean “no one is righteous”. The amazing passage from Romans proclaiming that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” actually reveals an unnecessary sacrifice because the world is full of sinless people. We are not in bondage to sin but, rather there are all of these sinless people around us…Mary, John the Baptist, John’s parents…who is next?

Please tell me that this contention that John the Baptist never sinned has not been dogmatically defined/proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
 
rr1213 said:
Truly, “all have sinned” doesn’t mean “all have sinned”. “No one is righteous” doesn’t mean “no one is righteous”. The amazing passage from Romans proclaiming that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” actually reveals an unnecessary sacrifice because the world is full of sinless people. We are not in bondage to sin but, rather there are all of these sinless people around us…Mary, John the Baptist, John’s parents…who is next?

Please tell me that this contention that John the Baptist never sinned has not been dogmatically defined/proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I know of no Magisterial teaching on the sinless state of John the Baptist.

But if the Church does say he’s sinless, then I’ll be in the front row singing next Sunday, “Immaculate Johnny……”
 
NotWorthy said:
I know of no Magisterial teaching on the sinless state of John the Baptist.

But if the Church does say he’s sinless, then I’ll be in the front row singing next Sunday, “Immaculate Johnny……”
Click to expand...
I understand.
 
RR, the best way to put this is:

One of the greatest gifts that Jesus left behind was the Church. As Catholics, we understand that Jesus wouldn’t steer the Church in the wrong direction, and we understand that the Holy Spirit is still guiding the direction of the Church. That’s why we so willingly follow and acknowledge Her authority, because to question Her authority is to question Jesus’ Words and Commands.

When Jesus says, “He who rejects you rejects Me”, we understand that He is talking to the Church. So when we reject the Church’s teaching, we are placing ourselves against Jesus.

So when non-catholics Christians take a teaching of the Church that they don’t understand and/or don’t agree with, they take it skeptically. When a Catholic doesn’t understand and/or agree with a teaching, they SHOULD learn more about it with an open mind, and invariably (okay, not invariably - but, they should) come to appreciate the beauty and truth behind the teaching.
 
Randy_Carson said:
This is purely speculative but entirely possible for two reasons.

First, anything is possible for God.

Second, note what the scriptures say:
“In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:5-6)
“Observing all of the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly”? How could someone fulfill the Law blamelessly if they were not sinless? If John’s parents were blameless, would John be born without original sin, also?

Now, you mention John in order to pull down Mary. But now, I’m mentioning John parents to suggest that perhaps they were also conceived without sin which enabled them to fulfill the law blamelessly and to enable their son, John, to be born without original sin just as Mary was born without original sin so that she might be worthy to bear the Son of God.

If Catholic declare sinlessness for Mary in honor of Jesus, and you declare John the Baptist to be even greater citing Jesus own words in this regard, then shouldn’t you at least consider the possibility that God did something similar to the Immaculate Conception for John?

Just thinking out loud here…
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense to me. So the running total so far:
Born without original sin:
Jesus -as prophesied
Mary-no scriptural support
John the Baptist-because he was better than Mary. Matt11:11
Elizabeth: no scriptural support
Zechariah:no scriptural support

Any others?
You know sin causes death.
Sinlessness means everlasting life.
So these folks should still be walking around.
 
newbie1234 said:
So after they cut off his head, he should have got up and walked away. Sinlessness means everlasting life.
Click to expand...
I think you are taking the argument in directions unwarranted by Scripture. Christ was without sin yet he most certainly died. Death came into the world through Adam’s sin but this does not neccessarily mean that someone who is sinless would not die. Creation was corrupted after the fall, which results in death, but a sinless person would still be subject to death due to the fall. I think that if Christ had not been sacrificed on the cross, his reason for the incarnation, his earthly body would have eventually died of old age since he is fully human as well as fully God. (Unless, of course, as God he would decree otherwise).
 
newbie1234 said:
It makes perfect sense to me. So the running total so far:
Born without original sin:
Jesus -as prophesied
Mary-no scriptural support
John the Baptist-because he was better than Mary. Matt11:11
Elizabeth: no scriptural support
Zechariah:no scriptural support

Any others?
You know sin causes death.
Sinlessness means everlasting life.
So these folks should still be walking around.
Click to expand...
Jesus - yes, as prophecied
Mary - yes, as prophecied in Genesis 3:15
John - yes, as prophecied in Luke (He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even in the womb. You can’t have original Sin and be filled with the Holy Spirit. The two cannot co-exist in the same soul).
Elizabeth and Zechariah - Who claimed that they were?
 
newbie1234 said:
So after they cut off his head, he should have got up and walked away. Sinlessness means everlasting life.
Click to expand...
You are thinking “of this world”.

Everlasting Last means the Grace of God resides in your soul.
 
NotWorthy said:
Jesus - yes, as prophecied
Mary - yes, as prophecied in Genesis 3:15
John - yes, as prophecied in Luke (He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even in the womb. You can’t have original Sin and be filled with the Holy Spirit. The two cannot co-exist in the same soul).
Elizabeth and Zechariah - Who claimed that they were?
Click to expand...
Let’s assume for a moment that John the Baptist was washed of his original sin in the womb at the time of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. Yes, John was greatest among those born of women, but also he is least among the kingdom of God. We also are washed of our orginal sin at the time of baptism yet we still sin. We have no reason to believe that in this sense John is different from the 10 Billion (or whatever) other people who have lived on the earth during the course of history.
 
rr1213 said:
Let’s assume for a moment that John the Baptist was washed of his original sin in the womb at the time of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. Yes, John was greatest among those born of women, but also he is least among the kingdom of God. We also are washed of our orginal sin at the time of baptism yet we still sin. We have no reason to believe that in this sense John is different from the 10 Billion (or whatever) other people who have lived on the earth during the course of history.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this point. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that John was sinless througout his life, just that he was born sinless. (Zechariah and Elizabeth, however…). I know other posters have made this claim, but I’m not of any opinion on it as of yet.

John still had free will. I think the closest thing you could relate it is that John received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit while within the womb. Of course, that brings up the whole infant baptism thing, though doesn’t it? And we all know that Newbie feels it is a waste.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top