Prayers to Mary

[crazzeto]

How exactly do you interpet “through one man, entered sin and death”?

Edit
Further, if sin and death did not enter the world through Adam, then what use was Christ? The whole point of Christ is that he is the second Adam, through him life and grace abounds in the world all the more (per Paul). I’m really not sure how you go about explaining Christ’s ministry with out the idea that sin and death entered the world through Adams original sin, which affects and marks us all today.

 

[Cristian_B]

How exactly do you interpet “through one man, entered sin and death”?

Edit
Further, if sin and death did not enter the world through Adam, then what use was Christ? The whole point of Christ is that he is the second Adam, through him life and grace abounds in the world all the more (per Paul). I’m really not sure how you go about explaining Christ’s ministry with out the idea that sin and death entered the world through Adams original sin, which affects and marks us all today.

I believe we are off-topic and if we go on like this the thread will soon be closed. If you are interested in my answers make a thread about original sin, or show me the one if it already exists.

 

[Fair_Lady]

Fair Lady;6300795:

Can you please cite Catholic teaching that says she does?

No. So that makes it even more perplexing that anyone would pray these words to Mary: “Obtain for them and for us the pardon of so many sins”.
When are Catholics asks Mary to pardon them?

It was revealed to John, who recorded it in the book of Revelation.

Please give me a reference to where John recorded in the Book of Revelation that the saintsi in heaven hear our prayers.

Who has done so?

Anyone who has prayed to Mary the following or anything like it: “To thank thee for keeping me safe this day, To ask thee this night to keep evil away.”

My point is that Mary doesn’t keep evil away nor does she keep me safe. God does that. If anything, one can thank someone else for their prayers, but give God the glory for doing the work in His sovereign timing.

As the Word of God it has meaning for all generations. It proves that the Saint are alive in Christ.

No doubt, saints who have gone on before us, are alive in Christ. That passage had been misused to prove that it’s okay to contact them.

 

[Fair_Lady]

That is a request for Mary to pray to God to obtain for us the pardon of so many sins. Please don’t interpret it to mean that Catholics believe that Mary has the power to forgive our sins. Because she doesn’t. And the Catholic Church has never taught that she does.

When Mary is asked to “obtain for us the pardon of so many sins”, what then, does it mean?

Well, in a way they *are * obtaining their pardons because they are praying to God and God may very well show those who sin that they have indeed sinned and open their hearts to the damage that sinning has done and to the love and forgiveness of God.

But that is then between God and the person who is praying. No one else enters the equation. Bottom line, it is impossible for Mary to do as she is asked if someone tells her “Obtain for us the pardon of so many sins.”

God doesn’t forgive sins when the person who has sinned isn’t sorry. If He did so He wouldn’t be allowing us to have free will. He would just be pretending to give us free will. I may sin and thumb my nose at God and say “There! I sinned!! Nyah!!” That is my free will. Is that sin forgiven? No, because I don’t want God to forgive it. (BTW, this is only an example with the intent to show what free will is. I don’t mean to imply that I have ever done this (I haven’t) or will ever do it (I won’t.))

No problem with that at all.

How do you know He doesn’t??

There, now we have established that it is not a fact that saints in heaven can hear us.

Nobody is giving Mary the credit that God deserves. The glory goes to God. We love Mary and honor her; we show that by praying to her. God’s glory goes to God alone.

But isn’t thanking Mary for what God has done giving her the credit. It would be like me accepting thaniks for the healing of someone just because I prayed for them. No. It was God who did the work. I will accept thanks for my prayers but not for the healing.

How do you know it was a one-time historical event?

Because it was recorded in God’s Word as one event and there is no hint that it was ever repeated.

How do you know the reasoning behind it?

REad the rest of the passage and you will get a glimpse of the reasoning behind it.

Jesus talked to those “dead” people. Either it’s wrong or it is OK. It’s already been pointed out that, by interpreting the passage you provided which “shows” that it is wrong to talk to “dead” people, you have taken it out of context.

How God decided to reveal Himself and His Son, Jesus Christ is totally up to Him. He has often used what we might consider strange ways to do the things He needed to do to accomplis His purposes. For instance, one commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet, God chose to flood the entire earth to kill nearly every human being. Yes, it’s wrong to kill human life, but God, in His infinite wisdom, sovereignity and almight power does not subject Himself to our limitations.

Either you believe the Bible or you don’t. Obviously in this case, you have again interpreted it. Why do you feel that you can do this and we should believe your interpretation? Why do you think that you can dismiss my interpretation and expect me to believe your’s?

The Bible wonderfully interprets itself. I would be crazy to say that I’m able to understand and interpret every detail in scripture, but if we follow that adage, “Let the main things be the plain things and the plain things be the main things”, it is amazing how one part of the Bible will concur with, expand upon or give a fantastic explanation of another part. But when I’m presented with something that cannot be proven in scripture, I will be challenging it.

The Church teaches that those who “die” as believers in God and who are in Purgatory or Heaven aren’t really dead, but alive and in the Communion of Saints.

It would be another topic, but I’d be interested in what the Bible has to say about purgatory.

We don’t believe that Moses and Elijah are dead - they are really alive in heaven. The fact that they conversed with Jesus provides evidence for this. Dead people don’t converse. They don’t do anything except rot.

True enough, but the issue is this: Should we be communicating with people who have died, even if they are in heaven? My stance is that the Bible tells us to pray to God.

Nobody here is saying anything different. But, remember:

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” [John 21:25, Douay-Rheims Bible]

I’ve sometimes had the fleeting thought that wouldn’t it be awesome to have everything recorded for us to read and look at today. But God gave us and preserved for us as much as He knows we need.

Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.”

 

[davidv]

davidv;6301376:

No. So that makes it even more perplexing that anyone would pray these words to Mary: “Obtain for them and for us the pardon of so many sins”.
When are Catholics asks Mary to pardon them?

They aren’t. You just think they do because you don’t understand the meaning of these words in the context this prayer.

Please give me a reference to where John recorded in the Book of Revelation that the saintsi in heaven hear our prayers.

Rev 5:8

When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. (NAB)

Anyone who has prayed to Mary the following or anything like it: “To thank thee for keeping me safe this day, To ask thee this night to keep evil away.”

My point is that Mary doesn’t keep evil away nor does she keep me safe. God does that. If anything, one can thank someone else for their prayers, but give God the glory for doing the work in His sovereign timing.

Why not. Mothers protect their children from all sorts of dangers.

No doubt, saints who have gone on before us, are alive in Christ. That passage had been misused to prove that it’s okay to contact them.

So you say, but you haven’t proven it.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I never read all of the prayers because I’m too tired to read right now. I don’t tend to do a lot of Mary devotions but I do pray the rosary. I’ve had some interesting things happen with rosaries. When I was 16, back in 1988, I went with some friend to Medjugorje. The Jesus on the cross of my rosary inexplicably turned blood red color while I was there.

Then, more recently, just last year when I started praying the rosary again, I had something else happen. I got a rosary as a gift from someone who went to Medjugorje. So I started to use the rosary and while I was praying I had a thought that I would like to go to this particular city tomorrow so I could listen to some catholic teaching in the car on the way there. The very next day a machine broke down in that city and of all the technicians I was chosen to go there and fix it. I figure it’s about a 1/90 chance the machine would break down on that day and I would get chosen. But then to add the chance that I would have thought of going to that city prior while I was praying the rosary makes it seem like an answer to prayer and a confirmation to me that I should be praying the rosary.

 

[Monte1945]

I don’t believe in the ‘original sin’ theory. I don’t believe that when we are born we are born with a sin. You are born with the consequences of Adam’s sin (or ‘original sin’), but the punishment does not pass from father to son. We all feel the consequences, but a baby is born sinless.

I do not think your thought goes with the main “revelated salvation plan of God” …
But lets see what we can do with that idea… according to scriptures:

Moses was given the ten commandents… The law… the Will of God for how people
were to live… If men would live by that law… they would have salvation…

They didn’t and they don’t… some even say men are incapable of it…

Then we have the phophets who said… “one was coming to pay for our sins”…
And then we would have salvation from God by the shed blood sacrifice of
Jesus “offered” to God.

Thus God sent his son… for the payment of our sins… etc…

Now if we were sinless at birth as you “think”… and we could obey the laws
of God… which we already had… why did God send his son?

Why not just let it be as the old testement and salvation plan had prior to the
coming of Jesus as the Christ?

St. Paul said, that the law was not for salvation that it was given to us to show
us that we were not in the will of God by being able to measure our sin from
the law we couldn’t keep… Therefore showing us we “need” Jesus.

“without the law I knew not sin”…

Then we have where Jesus said:

“First make the tree good and the fruit will be good there of”…

The general idea there is that our natures are not good… there is something
amiss with it… right at our birth… and we need to have the added Grace of
God which comes with Baptism in order to have the ablity to do good…

We can not make the tree good by producing good fruits… nor can we make
the tree bad by doing bad fruits… (fruits equal works)

You might want to consider having faith… and believe instead of attempting to “reason” God’s revealed truths. He really knows better. If we could “reason” it all out, then we
wouldn’t need faith… as faith is accepting that which really doesn’t fit into our ability
to reason…

If we can reason it out… then reason could have created it in the first place… Hmmm

 

[Monte1945]

I believe Mary sinned, therefore calling myself “mother of Christ” is not calling myself sinless.

Hail Mary “full of Grace”… For we are saved by Grace and not of ourselves…

if mary was full of Grace… she was saved… and she had this salvation
prior to Jesus’s death on the cross… she was given a special statis because
of her faith… God knew from the creation of time she would " say: let it be done"
and he gave her the Grace to be sinless prior to that time.

We read that after Jesus was found to be at the Temple as a boy… it reads:

and he went with them, (Mary and Joseph) and was obedient to them and
“'GREW” in wisdom and in “Grace”… Jesus grew in grace Mary was full
of grace…

The bible saids… “blessed are you among all women”…

Every generation will call me Blessed…

Jesus said… Pray like this “our father”… God is our father too…
we are adolped sons of God… Jesus is our brother, we have the same
father… Mary is Jesus’ mother. therefore she is our mother too…

Son behold thy mother… Mother behold thy son…
(if you are going to take the position that He was just saying that to
John then we have to assume that everything else he said to someone’
in the gospels… just meant that to them alone and not to us…
when he said to Nicodimus “you” must be born again. it must not have
meant us as he was talking to just nicodimus… yes?)

If you don’t see the obvious “difference” in her than in most other people,
from the scriptures then I can’t show it too you…

If one is going to take up the bible and claim it is the Written Word
of God. one has to take all of the bible and not just the parts they
understand… we are never going to understand the bible completely.
there are many “revealed truths of God” which we can not grasp
into our minds… and if you attempt to do so… you are going to just
end up frustrated… the more one reads and studies the bible the
more one sees things that are not within our minds to understand.

Mary is of such a subject as that… The church is not finished attempting
to find all the meanings of her. There is enough of her to fill volumes of
books and there are such… She is the most painted figure in all of the history
of Art… in the catatombs where the early christians hid and worished there
are numerous drawings of the Fish sign and of Mary scratched in the stones
of those walls… She has been a major part of the Catholic Church from the
beginning.

It seems wrong too me that one does not love and honor a good mother.

 

[Fair_Lady]

and he went with them, (Mary and Joseph) and was obedient to them and
“'GREW” in wisdom and in “Grace”… Jesus grew in grace Mary was full
of grace…

Can you tell me where in the Bible it states that Mary was “full of grace”? I’ve done several searches and don’t find it, not even in the RSV. I could only find two such phrases, as follows:

John.1
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, **full of grace **and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Acts.6
[8] And Stephen, **full of grace **and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Using your line of reasoning, would you then say that Stephen had lived a sinless life too?

 

[crazzeto]

Can you tell me where in the Bible it states that Mary was “full of grace”? I’ve done several searches and don’t find it, not even in the RSV. I could only find two such phrases, as follows:

John.1
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, **full of grace **and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Acts.6
[8] And Stephen, **full of grace **and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Using your line of reasoning, would you then say that Stephen had lived a sinless life too?

Luke 1:28
drbo.org/chapter/49001.htm
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The KJV prefers a more “protestant friendly” rendition
{1:28} And the angel came in unto her,
and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is]
with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Both technically say the same thing, the Douay more accuratly repersents Luke’s writing.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Can you tell me where in the Bible it states that Mary was “full of grace”? I’ve done several searches and don’t find it, not even in the RSV. I could only find two such phrases, as follows:

John.1
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, **full of grace **and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Acts.6
[8] And Stephen, **full of grace **and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Using your line of reasoning, would you then say that Stephen had lived a sinless life too?

Fair Lady - this has already been discussed!! Please see post # 284. Never mind, I’ll cut and paste it for you:

The following is a quote (with minor changes in punctuation) from a prior thread which discussed this very topic. My computer won’t allow me to cut and paste Greek letters so this is the best I can do. For more info please follow the link. This is the way the original Greek refers to Stephen:

“stefanoV de plhrhV caritoV kai dunamewV epoiei terata kai shmeia megala en tw law.”

The focus of the verb is the word “epoiei” which is a verb that is imperfect tense. This is still a past tense verb so the verse is still talking of an action that is no longer happening, but it is a progressive. It can be translated as, “was doing”. The entire verse can be translated literally as:

“Stephen, but full of grace and strength, was doing miracles and great signs among the people.”

This is speaking of something that was being done sometime in the past but is not being done now.

Here is somewhat how the Greek would be pronounced:

“stephanos de playrais charitos kai dunamaos epoiei terata kai saimaya megala en to lao.”

The imperfect tense is past time just like the pluperfect.

It is specifically speaking of something in the past. Stephen was full of grace at the time when doing the great works, but it does not say he is still full of Grace. Whereas in the Mary passage it continues into the present.

Luke 1:28 reads:

“kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.”

The word “kecaritwmenh” is used here. This is a perfect passive participle. It is also feminine. A participle is a verb that is used to describe the subject. The perfect tense describes an action in present time which has a completed aspect. In this verse it is used as a title and means basically “you who have been graced” or “you who have been filled with grace”. This word is not speaking of just a little grace, it is speaking of an abundance of grace. Although this is a completed action, the effects are still on going in this verse. Mary is still full of grace when the angel says this.

This is somewhat how the Greek is pronounced:

“kai eiselthone pros autain eipen, chaire, kecharitomenay, o kurios meta sou.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55634
(thank you, Jimmy!!)

**To sum it up, the original Greek uses different terms to refer to Mary and Stephen. When it is used as referring to Mary, the term is a title. The Angel Gabriel came to Mary and said “Hail, Full of Grace…” This it not used as a title when it refers to Stephen.

The term “full of grace” does not mean the same when it is used as referring to Stephen and when it is used as referring to Mary. **

 

[Indyann]

Fair Lady - this has already been discussed!! Please see post # 284. Never mind, I’ll cut and paste it for you:

The following is a quote (with minor changes in punctuation) from a prior thread which discussed this very topic. My computer won’t allow me to cut and paste Greek letters so this is the best I can do. For more info please follow the link. This is the way the original Greek refers to Stephen:

“stefanoV de plhrhV caritoV kai dunamewV epoiei terata kai shmeia megala en tw law.”

The focus of the verb is the word “epoiei” which is a verb that is imperfect tense. This is still a past tense verb so the verse is still talking of an action that is no longer happening, but it is a progressive. It can be translated as, “was doing”. The entire verse can be translated literally as:

“Stephen, but full of grace and strength, was doing miracles and great signs among the people.”

This is speaking of something that was being done sometime in the past but is not being done now.

Here is somewhat how the Greek would be pronounced:

“stephanos de playrais charitos kai dunamaos epoiei terata kai saimaya megala en to lao.”

The imperfect tense is past time just like the pluperfect.

It is specifically speaking of something in the past. Stephen was full of grace at the time when doing the great works, but it does not say he is still full of Grace. Whereas in the Mary passage it continues into the present.

Luke 1:28 reads:

“kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.”

The word “kecaritwmenh” is used here. This is a perfect passive participle. It is also feminine. A participle is a verb that is used to describe the subject. The perfect tense describes an action in present time which has a completed aspect. In this verse it is used as a title and means basically “you who have been graced” or “you who have been filled with grace”. This word is not speaking of just a little grace, it is speaking of an abundance of grace. Although this is a completed action, the effects are still on going in this verse. Mary is still full of grace when the angel says this.

This is somewhat how the Greek is pronounced:

“kai eiselthone pros autain eipen, chaire, kecharitomenay, o kurios meta sou.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55634
(thank you, Jimmy!!)

**To sum it up, the original Greek uses different terms to refer to Mary and Stephen. When it is used as referring to Mary, the term is a title. The Angel Gabriel came to Mary and said “Hail, Full of Grace…” This it not used as a title when it refers to Stephen.

The term “full of grace” does not mean the same when it is used as referring to Stephen and when it is used as referring to Mary. **

I am amazed, almost daily, regarding the wisdom and knowledge of some CAF apologists.

Kind of throws cold water on that “bible interprets itself” line.

 

[Cristian_B]

I do not think your thought goes with the main “revelated salvation plan of God” …
But lets see what we can do with that idea… according to scriptures:

Moses was given the ten commandents… The law… the Will of God for how people
were to live… If men would live by that law… they would have salvation…

They didn’t and they don’t… some even say men are incapable of it…

Then we have the phophets who said… “one was coming to pay for our sins”…
And then we would have salvation from God by the shed blood sacrifice of
Jesus “offered” to God.

Thus God sent his son… for the payment of our sins… etc…

Now if we were sinless at birth as you “think”… and we could obey the laws
of God… which we already had… why did God send his son?

Why not just let it be as the old testement and salvation plan had prior to the
coming of Jesus as the Christ?

St. Paul said, that the law was not for salvation that it was given to us to show
us that we were not in the will of God by being able to measure our sin from
the law we couldn’t keep… Therefore showing us we “need” Jesus.

“without the law I knew not sin”…

Then we have where Jesus said:

“First make the tree good and the fruit will be good there of”…

The general idea there is that our natures are not good… there is something
amiss with it… right at our birth… and we need to have the added Grace of
God which comes with Baptism in order to have the ablity to do good…

We can not make the tree good by producing good fruits… nor can we make
the tree bad by doing bad fruits… (fruits equal works)

You might want to consider having faith… and believe instead of attempting to “reason” God’s revealed truths. He really knows better. If we could “reason” it all out, then we
wouldn’t need faith… as faith is accepting that which really doesn’t fit into our ability
to reason…

If we can reason it out… then reason could have created it in the first place… Hmmm

I don’t see how what you posted proves that we are born with an original sin.

A baby is born without sin, but because of his nature, he later sins.

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t see how what you posted proves that we are born with an original sin.

A baby is born without sin, but because of his nature, he later sins.

Your interpetation conflicts with Gensis Chapter 1, as it would suggest that the the inherent nature of men is not good. That when God created us, he created us imperfectly, however we read:

26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

So to suggest what you’re trying to suggest, is to by extension suggest that God created imperfectly. I’m sorry that is not the case, we do not have a depraved imperfect nature. What we do have, is a fallen nature due to the Sin of Adam from Genisis 3:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? 2 And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. 4 And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. 5 For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. 8 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. 9 And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? 10 And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.

11 And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? 12 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

So what we have here is the original sin, the fall of man, and the promise of a saviour who will be born of a woman whom has “emnity” put between her and the serpent to repair the damange.

 

[LittleSoldier]

When Mary is asked to “obtain for us the pardon of so many sins”, what then, does it mean?

It means we are asking her to pray for us to God and ask Him to forgive our sins.

But that is then between God and the person who is praying. No one else enters the equation. Bottom line, it is impossible for Mary to do as she is asked if someone tells her “Obtain for us the pardon of so many sins.”

If I’m upset about something I’ve done (like beating my dog (just an example, I don’t do this, but it would be an awful thing if I had, right? A sin, yes?)) and you are someone I love and trust and I say “Fair Lady, I did the worst thing. I beat my dog and I feel horrible. Will you please pray for me?” What do you do? I would think you would pray to God for me. Would you be obtaining pardon of my sin for me? No. But it would help me if you prayed to God to help me. And that means you are helping me obtain forgiveness for my sin of beating my dog. That is what I meant.

There, now we have established that it is not a fact that saints in heaven can hear us.

No, we have not done that at all. At all.

But isn’t thanking Mary for what God has done giving her the credit. It would be like me accepting thaniks for the healing of someone just because I prayed for them. No. It was God who did the work. I will accept thanks for my prayers but not for the healing.

Exactly!! If you prayed for me after I beat my dog, I would thank you for your prayers, not for the forgiveness of my sin. When Mary prays for me, I thank her for her prayers, not for the forgiveness of my sin. She can’t forgive my sin.

Because it was recorded in God’s Word as one event and there is no hint that it was ever repeated.

This doesn’t even make the slightest bit of sense. Once isn’t enough for you? Should Jesus have had numerous conversations with them so that you would know they are not dead, but alive in Him?

REad the rest of the passage and you will get a glimpse of the reasoning behind it.

Will do.

How God decided to reveal Himself and His Son, Jesus Christ is totally up to Him. He has often used what we might consider strange ways to do the things He needed to do to accomplis His purposes. For instance, one commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet, God chose to flood the entire earth to kill nearly every human being. Yes, it’s wrong to kill human life, but God, in His infinite wisdom, sovereignity and almight power does not subject Himself to our limitations.

Actually, it’s not “kill.” As was discussed before in this thread (just like “Full of Grace” was discussed before - please read that post), the word is more correctly translated as “murder.” Ask Cristian. He knows.

So here you are saying that God does not subject Himself to our limitations, when a minute ago you were saying that Jesus speaking to Moses and Elijah was a one-time event because there is not a hint in the Bible that it ever happened again. You are putting limits on God; you are making Him appear lackadasaical and wimpy when you make statements like that. I’m very sorry, but I’m tired and I hurt and I’ve been trying to explain this to you for a long time now. You take the Bible and interpret (and remember, Paul said that YOU are not to do this, as you are a woman and you are not allowed to teach) this passage about Jesus, Moses, and Elijah as a one-time event, which is definitely putting limits on God. Either you accept what Jesus did, all of it, or you don’t. I think you don’t.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Continuation of Last Post to Fair Lady:

The Bible wonderfully interprets itself. I would be crazy to say that I’m able to understand and interpret every detail in scripture, but if we follow that adage, “Let the main things be the plain things and the plain things be the main things”, it is amazing how one part of the Bible will concur with, expand upon or give a fantastic explanation of another part. But when I’m presented with something that cannot be proven in scripture, I will be challenging it.

It interprets itself? So then why are we disagreeing about what it says? Why are there so many groups splintered off from the original Church? You did not know that “kill” is an incorrect translation, you did not know that “Full of Grace” is a misleading translation, yet you believe the Bible interprets itself (wonderfully). That may indeed be true, but until you (and I) understand Greek, Hebrew, Latin, theology, history, and geography (and probably a lot more) we won’t be able to fully understand it and probably not even then. We can take passages and go back to the original language and find out what they mean in that language and that is a good first step. But you haven’t done that, have you? I haven’t (although I’m trying to learn Latin). You aren’t a theologian and neither am I.

But you misunderstood “Thou shalt not kill” and that is one of the most basic statements in the Bible (it is a “main thing”). How can you be so sure that you understand even the “main things” when you don’t even understand the Commandments?

It would be another topic, but I’d be interested in what the Bible has to say about purgatory.

Yes, another thread. Let’s don’t go there.

True enough, but the issue is this: Should we be communicating with people who have died, even if they are in heaven? My stance is that the Bible tells us to pray to God.

Thank you. This shows me that something I’m saying is getting through. The Bible does tell us to pray to God. We all pray to God. But if you can pray for me, so can the saints and so can Mary. They aren’t dead. Moses and Elijah weren’t dead. Or do you think Jesus temporarily resurrected them just to converse with them one time and then killed them?

I’ve sometimes had the fleeting thought that wouldn’t it be awesome to have everything recorded for us to read and look at today. But God gave us and preserved for us as much as He knows we need.

Wouldn’t it indeed be awesome? But where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only place “God gave us and preserved for us as much as He knows we need?” Have you ever thought about the possibility that Jesus said things to the Apostles that were not recorded in the Bible? They were probably not recorded on paper (or papyrus) at all. It was difficult to record events when the Apostles were alive on this earth. They didn’t have an unlimited supply of ink and papyrus. I’m sure they did what they could to write things down, but there is another way to communicate and that is orally. That is how most Native American tribes passed on their history and it is still with us today.

We need to know and understand all of what Jesus did. The Apostles taught much more than what is written down. And as Peter was the first Pope (and an Apostle), it is Apostolic succession that allows us to know what Jesus did that is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say it is the only source of the teachings of God. Nowhere. To assume that it is the only source is to turn your eyes and heart away from other sources of God’s word.

The Bible is a beautiful, wonderful, awe-inspiring work. It is the word of God. But it was penned by humans and not until several hundred years after Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended into heaven. Nowhere does the Bible even state that the Apostles were to pen a Bible, and they didn’t. They taught. Some of these teachings were written down; many probably weren’t. But that doesn’t mean that the teachings that weren’t written down are not the word of God.

Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.”

The Psalms are beautiful. If you want, I’ll tell you my favorite. It has brought me much comfort during a particularly trying part of my life. Of course I agree with what you wrote above, but let me add that ALL words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

ALL words. Every single one of them - not just the words in the Bible.

 

[crazzeto]

Regarding Sola Scriptura:

I would like to offer the following scriptures for your consideration, and when you read it I would like you to ponder this question,

Who told you “the bible alone is the sole rule of faith”, Jesus Christ? Or someone else?

2 Peter 1:
18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Acts 8:
27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

2 Peter 3:
15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Thessalonians 2:
14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

1 Timothy 3
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t see how what you posted proves that we are born with an original sin.

A baby is born without sin, but because of his nature, he later sins.

He has that nature because he has original sin.

 

[Cristian_B]

Of course. It does not need private interpretation. It interprets itself.

 

[crazzeto]

Of course. It does not need private interpretation. It interprets itself.

Now how do you answer Acts 8, 2 Peter 3, Thessalonians 2, 1 Timothy 3? Do you not see a certain inconsitancy with your argument here?