Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[joshua_b]

Why did Mary of the Bible say my God my “Savior”, what non-sinner needs a Savior?

The Bible clearly states “ALL of fallen short”, “All have sinned”, “In Him there is no evil”, which would make God a liar, which He cannot. When you start making exceptions that directly conflict with what God stated, then 2 things happen, one makes oneself a higher authority than God…right? and one opens a Pandora’s box on what God says…God does not misspeak…that’s why the whole sin problem is inherited by Adam. As far as the other saints mentioned, nothing says they ever sinned or never sinned, but God said all have. The Bible doesn’t spell out concerning babies that die, but we all have the original sin nature even babies; therefore they must be washed before even they can enter Heaven, but when we reach an age of accountability are we no longer under special Grace, what I believe, but cannot prove from Scripture, God’s special Grace. What I do know is people go the Hell because of unbelief; so obviously a baby or mentally challenged person will never be able to comprehend and make the choice of unbelief; therefore it is logical to assume all people that cannot make that choice will be in Heaven by God’s Grace through Christ Jesus.

What is the penalty to all mankind for Adams sin or any sin? DEATH Babies die, all the others mentioned above died. Enoch and Elijah in the old testament are the only 2 I can think that appeared not to die. We cannot say they were without sin, because the Bible doesn’t state that. Also, because someone is said to find favor with God is different than saying they did not sin. Anyone who goes to Heaven found favor with God…and if you count common Grace, then we all find some favor with God.

I’m sorry NonCatholic, but, have you bothered reading this thread? Please do before you jump in with the almost-obligatory response to anything that remotely alludes to the Church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This was gone over in detail andthe very point of Mary needing a savior was addressed as nauseum.

If after bringing yourself up to speed, you still have points of discussion, then by all means this is a discussion forum, and let the discussion continue. Is it really necessary that I (or someone else) repeat pages of lengthy posts to discuss a point that has already been discussed at great length, simply because you want everyone to know that you don’t like the idea that Mary was born without the stain of original sin?

 

[NonCatholic]

joshua_b:

simply because you want everyone to know that you don’t like the idea that Mary was born without the stain of original sin?

Actually I want people interested in knowing what the Bible teaches to read their Bible in all the areas that she spoke with Jesus and vice-versa, then draw their own conclusions. It is a great spiritual exercise.

Even some of my Catholic relatives and neighbors have difficulty reconciling the Catholic Mary in relation to the Biblical Mary, just because so much of Mary’s life has been recorded outside of the Bible, that a clear distinction between the two is obvious, but let the Scripture Speak for itself.

Apparently you are King of the Thread, so I will post this and move along in respect of your majesty.

 

[janw]

Actually I want people interested in knowing what the Bible teaches to read their Bible in all the areas that she spoke with Jesus and vice-versa, then draw their own conclusions. It is a great spiritual exercise.

Even some of my Catholic relatives and neighbors have difficulty reconciling the Catholic Mary in relation to the Biblical Mary, just because so much of Mary’s life has been recorded outside of the Bible, that a clear distinction between the two is obvious, but let the Scripture Speak for itself.

Apparently you are King of the Thread, so I will post this and move along in respect of your majesty.

Good, because the thread has been very interesting. If the church fathers had only known we would one day have Bible only christians, I’m sure they would have put in alot more information when they were choosing what to use and what to leave out. I guess they believed that all christians would always be catholic and would look to the church for more information.

 

[janw]

Actually I want people interested in knowing what the Bible teaches to read their Bible in all the areas that she spoke with Jesus and vice-versa, then draw their own conclusions. It is a great spiritual exercise.

Even some of my Catholic relatives and neighbors have difficulty reconciling the Catholic Mary in relation to the Biblical Mary, just because so much of Mary’s life has been recorded outside of the Bible, that a clear distinction between the two is obvious, but let the Scripture Speak for itself.

Apparently you are King of the Thread, so I will post this and move along in respect of your majesty.

Good, because the thread has been very interesting. If the catholic church had only known we would one day have Bible only christians, I’m sure they would have put in alot more information when they were choosing what to use and what to leave out. I guess they thought all christians would always be catholic and would look to the church for all other information.

 

[joshua_b]

Then why would God not do the same for us all and avoid the horror of Jesus crucified? If He would do that for Mary, why not all of us?

Not even the most briliant of theologians and biblical scholars have insight into “why” God does things the way He does. I wish I could see the world through the righteousness and justness and wisdom of God, butcan not know His mind, so I have no answer for this. It certainly would be nice if He did do that for all of us though; I have more than once pondered this very question. This is a good question, and I did not want it to seem I was ignoring it. I simply do not have an answer to this one.

 

[joshua_b]

Actually I want people interested in knowing what the Bible teaches to read their Bible in all the areas that she spoke with Jesus and vice-versa, then draw their own conclusions. It is a great spiritual exercise.

Even some of my Catholic relatives and neighbors have difficulty reconciling the Catholic Mary in relation to the Biblical Mary, just because so much of Mary’s life has been recorded outside of the Bible, that a clear distinction between the two is obvious, but let the Scripture Speak for itself.

Apparently you are King of the Thread, so I will post this and move along in respect of your majesty.

I apologize if I seemed out of line; after several pages of posting, I wasa simply annoyed at the prospect of having to repeat it all (I have 3 children…LOL). I hold no status here, or anywhere else I assure you. Please, stay and contribute. Your respectful opinions and ideas are just as valid as mine or anyone elses.

Again, I apologize if the tone of my post seemed out of line.

 

[joshua_b]

Good, because the thread has been very interesting. If the catholic church had only known we would one day have Bible only christians, I’m sure they would have put in alot more information when they were choosing what to use and what to leave out. I guess they thought all christians would always be catholic and would look to the church for all other information.

I tend to agree with this. In reading a lot of the letters to the various Churches that ended up being canonized into the N.T., there is certainly much left “unsaid”. Without going into too much detail right here and now, I tend to think their silence on a great many matters really does speak to the unity and structure of the early Church. The letters seem to be written with a presupposition of a certain baseline of belief, if you will. There are a great many things the N.T. does not speak on, such as how the Church is supposed to be structured, doctrines such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, worship on Sunday, etc. Yes these things are touched upon, but it seems like the writers took for granted that these things were already in place so there was no need to exhaust these already accepted topics by writing them down. I think, had the writers of the N.T. known that ultimately their epistles been destined to be the sole documents on which people’s Christianity would hinge, they would have been much more meticulous in their discussion of a great many things.

 

[ckempston]

It would make the Bible Fallible, thus God fallible.

I don’t see how it would make God fallible. It’s hard for me to believe and understand as well, but the explanation that Mary had Grace applied to her ahead of time means that she was, in some sense, guilty of sin and in need of a savior; the Catholic explanation is just that she never experienced it personally. It sounds like a stretch to me, but it is not totally unfathomable.

Once that road is taken, then anything can and does go in my opinion and observations. It really wasn’t a snake in the garden, it was a guy with a pitchfork since snakes don’t really talk and God doesn’t really say what he means. Johan wasn’t literally in the belly of a sea creature/whale for 3 days and 3 nights-no one could live through that and God was just making up some example.

I’d tend to agree that we have to watch out for the slippery slopes.

I have looked at the relationship between Jesus and Mary in chronological order (sometime ago) from the Biblical perspective and I see a distinctive pattern of separation from the earthly-motherly relationship as we know it between our own parents, to one of a compassionate Savior.

Can you clarify what you’re saying here regarding the “separation”?

This is an area of faith for each individual ; I personally have a hard time understanding.

 

[ckempston]

Actually I want people interested in knowing what the Bible teaches to read their Bible in all the areas that she spoke with Jesus and vice-versa, then draw their own conclusions. It is a great spiritual exercise.

The only time I can recall them having an actual conversation was in Cana, and Jesus did what she asked of him. How does this suggest anything negative as you imply below? The rest of the statements in the gospels are entirely positive in regard to Mary, and Jesus was concerned with her even as he was dying on the cross.

Even some of my Catholic relatives and neighbors have difficulty reconciling the Catholic Mary in relation to the Biblical Mary, just because so much of Mary’s life has been recorded outside of the Bible, that a clear distinction between the two is obvious, but let the Scripture Speak for itself.

Please back up your claims with actual scripture instead of just claiming that “it’s in there.” Honestly, when someone says, “let the Scripture speak for itself” what I hear is: I’m not willing to take the time, or I am incapable of supporting my position.

Apparently you are King of the Thread, so I will post this and move along in respect of your majesty.

You came into the discussion on page 30 of the thread for goodness sake! And you bring up an issue that has been discussed and explained very thoroughly, and basically say, “End of discussion, Catholics are just wrong.” Did you expect a different type of response?

 

[onenow1]

It would make the Bible Fallible, thus God fallible.
=NC This is an area of faith for each individual ; I personally have a hard time understanding.

Quote= onenow1 Mornin ! Maybe this can help.

Below are quotes from the bible,

Luke 1:48,

“Henceforth”,
means from the moment she said it until the end of time.

“All generations”,
that I would presume includes us too.

“Shall / will”,
denotes a command and not a suggestion.

You mentioned her name in posts but you never once called her “Blessed Mary”.

These are clear commands from scripture that Catholics follow.

And this: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you." John 14:16-17

Notice that the Spirit of Truth is not given to the whole world, but to a select few, His Apostles, those who build upon the foundation of which He laid.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 14:26
Notice the future tense of this verse. The teaching or Development of Doctrine will continue into the future.

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” John 16:12-13

Another two verses speaking of future tense, “He will guide you…”

The Catholic Church was there from the beginning, and has remained, stalwart for 2000yrs. and her doctrines have not changed since.

The pillar and bulwark of truth is the CC, that protected the word of God[N.T.] before it was even written, and compiled it afterward, and gave it to the world, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,onenow1

 

[ryanoneil]

Very funny. You are close, though, this is going WAY off topic.

The word in question is not “is” but “eternal”, which in the Bible (NT) is always a variation of the Greek word “aion,” a noun which simply means “age.” The word is often pluralized, which makes no sense if it means “eternity.” It is often spoken of with a beginning and an end, which also makes no sense if it means “eternity.” There are a lot of other reasons, but these pretty well sum it up.

OK! enough said in this regard. If you want to move away from the Mary topic, in general, say so.

It’s hard for me to believe and understand as well, but the explanation that Mary had Grace applied to her ahead of time means that she was, in some sense, guilty of sin and in need of a savior; the Catholic explanation is just that she never experienced it personally. It sounds like a stretch to me, but it is not totally unfathomable.

The way it was explained to me was: Mary was subject to original sin like everyone else, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud pudddle, and then washed us. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ’s redemption.

The only time I can recall them having an actual conversation was in Cana, and Jesus did what she asked of him.

There is also (Luke 2:48-51)

When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he said to them. He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

Peace

 

[ckempston]

OK! enough said in this regard. If you want to move away from the Mary topic, in general, say so.

The way it was explained to me was: Mary was subject to original sin like everyone else, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud pudddle, and then washed us. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ’s redemption.

There is also (Luke 2:48-51)

When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he said to them. He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

Peace

Ah, the Temple scene. Thanks for reminding me of this one. I can imagine the anxiety of losing sight of your child, but imagine that prayer: Uh, God, uh, I kind of misplaced the Messiah.

 

[ryanoneil]

Ah, the Temple scene. Thanks for reminding me of this one. I can imagine the anxiety of losing sight of your child, but imagine that prayer: Uh, God, uh, I kind of misplaced the Messiah.

LOL! I think there is something significant about this but I’ll have to look for it after Church

 

[NonCatholic]

onenow1:

Notice that the Spirit of Truth is not given to the whole world, but to a select few, His Apostles, those who build upon the foundation of which He laid.

The Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, which indwells every true believer…the reason the Spirit if Truth is used in the context specific to the Apostles is to reassure them of Jesus promise to them that the helper would not only come in His absence, but lead to all truth taught by Jesus to their remembrance, both orally and written…as the Holy Spirit is the divine author of all Scripture.

If it is true that one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into truth, as written in Scripture, and it is, then relying on another person for that truth, when you already have the perfect teacher diminishes the authority of the Holy Spirit. The more you pore your heart into the study of the Scripture and the more faithful and obedient to the truth you have been given, then the more truth will be revealed to you. Remember Paul told the Corinthians that they were still in need of milk, yet they should have been on solid food by then, but because they were bickering among each other and not focusing on the Word, they were still in need of teaching instead of being teachers and were unable to receive more truth at that time.

 

[ckempston]

The Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, which indwells every true believer…the reason the Spirit if Truth is used in the context specific to the Apostles is to reassure them of Jesus promise to them that the helper would not only come in His absence, but lead to all truth taught by Jesus to their remembrance, both orally and written…as the Holy Spirit is the divine author of all Scripture.

If it is true that one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into truth, as written in Scripture, and it is, then relying on another person for that truth, when you already have the perfect teacher diminishes the authority of the Holy Spirit. The more you pore your heart into the study of the Scripture and the more faithful and obedient to the truth you have been given, then the more truth will be revealed to you. Remember Paul told the Corinthians that they were still in need of milk, yet they should have been on solid food by then, but because they were bickering among each other and not focusing on the Word, they were still in need of teaching instead of being teachers and were unable to receive more truth at that time.

Are you saying that you don’t rely on other people’s interpretations of scripture? Unless you are a Greek and Hebrew scholar, then you rely on another person already. Translations involve interpretation by men, and as such, are subject to opinion and assumptions based on individual worldview. Not to mention that, for the first few hundred years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it, so there was no choice, but to rely on another person for truth. Even after the Canon was established, it wasn’t like every laymen had a Bible for personal daily devotion.

Ironically enough, when Paul told the Corinthians they needed Milk, it was because they were quarrelling and there were divisions among them. Why would there be divisions among them? Probably because each person thought he was his own final authority on Truth.

 

[NonCatholic]

No, not saying that other people cannot help, rather the Holy Spirit is the primary teacher of Scripture, after all He did write it…right?

There are plenty of others who have written commentaries, for example, that were doing the very thing I spoke of, which is digging deep into thought and study of God’s word and coming to understanding through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These are only secondary resources, God did not make it impossible to know His truth.

It is not how many times you read God’s Word, but rather how much God’s Word lives through you.

This is one of the reason I am here, because it is a great way to dig deeper into the Word.

 

[onenow1]

No, not saying that other people cannot help, rather the Holy Spirit is the primary teacher of Scripture, after all He did write it…right?

There are plenty of others who have written commentaries, for example, that were doing the very thing I spoke of, which is digging deep into thought and study of God’s word and coming to understanding through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These are only secondary resources, God did not make it impossible to know His truth.

It is not how many times you read God’s Word, but rather how much God’s Word lives through you.

This is one of the reason I am here, because it is a great way to dig deeper into the Word.

From, onenow1,Romans 10:14 “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?”
In this verse we see that in order to properly hear the word of GOD so that they may believe, there is a condition attached.
They cannot “believe in Him” unless they have heard it, and have heard it from a preacher.
Does that verse mean any preacher, even a false one (2Cor 11:12-15)?
No, definitely not, for Holy Scripture teaches that it could not be just any preacher, but only a preacher who is sent by GOD.
The very next verse will teach us this.

Romans 10:15, “And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written (Isaiah 52:7, Nahum 1:15*), “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”” (Please note that “good news” is the meaning of the word “Gospel”.)
“And how can men preach unless they are sent?” Sent?
If anyone has been sent, then it stands to reason that “someone” had to do the sending.> JESUS

May your Christmas be filled with joy and peace. Onenow1

 

[NonCatholic]

From, onenow1,Romans 10:14 “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?”
In this verse we see that in order to properly hear the word of GOD so that they may believe, there is a condition attached.
They cannot “believe in Him” unless they have heard it, and have heard it from a preacher.
Does that verse mean any preacher, even a false one (2Cor 11:12-15)?
No, definitely not, for Holy Scripture teaches that it could not be just any preacher, but only a preacher who is sent by GOD.
The very next verse will teach us this.

You are incorrect and have not searched the Scripture:

Philippians 1:12-18 12 Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, 13 so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, 14 and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. 15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.

It is the Word that penetrates and save, not the preacher.

The Word, the Word, the Word, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word is God!

 

[guanophore]

Why did Mary of the Bible say my God my “Savior”, what non-sinner needs a Savior?

Because she knew she had been saved by Him.
I would think that would be obvious.

The Bible clearly states “ALL of fallen short”, “All have sinned”,

I several places, not all of which mean “all”. For example:

Mark 1:4-5
5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

We know that not “all” went out to him, and not “all” were baptized. Similarly, not “all” have fallen short, either. Jesus Himself says that He did not come to call the righteous, so we know there were some that were.

When you start making exceptions that directly conflict with what God stated, then 2 things happen, one makes oneself a higher authority than God…right?

Well, there are a couple problems with this. One is that the exception don’t conflict with what God has stated, only your understanding of what was stated. Second, God gave authority to His Church to define and develop doctrine. This does not take authority away from God.

nothing says they ever sinned or never sinned, but God said all have.

Or, so you misunderstood the passage.

The Bible doesn’t spell out concerning babies that die, but we all have the original sin nature even babies; therefore they must be washed before even they can enter Heaven, but when we reach an age of accountability are we no longer under special Grace, what I believe, but cannot prove from Scripture,

I am glad to hear that you realize some of your beliefs also cannot be shown in scripture.

God’s special Grace. What I do know is people go the Hell because of unbelief; so obviously a baby or mentally challenged person will never be able to comprehend and make the choice of unbelief; therefore it is logical to assume all people that cannot make that choice will be in Heaven by God’s Grace through Christ Jesus.

So, we are in agreement that “all” does not mean “all”?

What is the penalty to all mankind for Adams sin or any sin? DEATH Babies die, all the others mentioned above died.

But clearly this was a spiritual death, since Adam and Eve went on living. God put them out of the Garden.

Enoch and Elijah in the old testament are the only 2 I can think that appeared not to die. We cannot say they were without sin, because the Bible doesn’t state that.

The Bible says they were taken up. And the Bible says that nothing unclean can enter heaven.

Also, because someone is said to find favor with God is different than saying they did not sin.  Anyone who goes to Heaven found favor with God..and if you count common Grace, then we all find some favor with God.

I agree. Mary was full of grace before the angel came to her. When there is a fullness of grace, no sin can be present.

It would make the Bible Fallible, thus God fallible.

Are you saying that God cannot save whomever He wants, however He wants? Are you saying that God is not capable of preserving a person of sin at the moment of conception.

Once that road is taken, then anything can and does go in my opinion and observations.

This seems to imply that your opinion and observations have become the standard by which Truth should be measured.

I have looked at the relationship between Jesus and Mary in chronological order (sometime ago) from the Biblical perspective and I see a distinctive pattern of separation from the earthly-motherly relationship as we know it between our own parents, to one of a compassionate Savior.

This is an area of faith for each individual ; I personally have a hard time understanding.

I think it is hard for anyone separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

Actually I want people interested in knowing what the Bible teaches to read their Bible in all the areas that she spoke with Jesus and vice-versa, then draw their own conclusions. It is a great spiritual exercise.

I agree!

 

[guanophore]

Even some of my Catholic relatives and neighbors have difficulty reconciling the Catholic Mary in relation to the Biblical Mary, just because so much of Mary’s life has been recorded outside of the Bible, that a clear distinction between the two is obvious, but let the Scripture Speak for itself.

I would be interested to see where " so much of Mary’s life has been recorded outside the bible". I have not seen this, and it sounds interesting. Where can it be found?

Apparently you are King of the Thread, so I will post this and move along in respect of your majesty.

This sounds pretty sarcastic, NC. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask you to read a thread before you jump into the middle of it and start posting, especially on issues that have been addressed above.

The Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, which indwells every true believer…the reason the Spirit if Truth is used in the context specific to the Apostles is to reassure them of Jesus promise to them that the helper would not only come in His absence, but lead to all truth taught by Jesus to their remembrance, both orally and written…as the Holy Spirit is the divine author of all Scripture.

You know, it is posts such as this one, which portray a confidence in your status as a “true believer” that make your thread on “What must I do to to be saved” seem disingenuous.

If it is true that one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into truth, as written in Scripture,

This statement seems to imply that the Truth can only be found in the Scripture. It also seems to contradict the assertion above that Jesus sent the Spirit to bring rememberance both orally and written.

and it is, then relying on another person for that truth, when you already have the perfect teacher diminishes the authority of the Holy Spirit.

I suppose it would. But such a formulation seems to assume that God cannot lead through others. If this is the case, then there is no possibility that the Scripture is authentic, because it exists because “men, inspired by the HS, wrote”. In the same way, those men, inspired by the HS preached, taught, and made disciples. If God was not working through them to preserve His Word, then Jesus did not really build a Church, but just “blind following blind” as you have insinuated.

 The more you pore your heart into the study of the Scripture and the more faithful and obedient to the truth you have been given, then the more truth will be revealed to you.  Remember Paul told the Corinthians that they were still in need of milk, yet they should have been on solid food by then, but because they were  bickering among each other and not focusing on the Word, they were still in need of teaching instead of being teachers and were unable to receive more truth at that time.

All true things, and very odd to hear from a person if he is not sure he is saved.