Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do we sin because of SS or thru SS ? Do not folks under Tradition or thru Tradition sin ? If we debate God’s true methodologies, then I say, rather God hath said, " Let all men be liars, only God is true".

Blessings
Neither, I think. We sin because we are plagued by the world, the flesh, and the devil and because we fail to walk in the grace provided that frees us from sin.

God gave us the Church as a hospital for sinners, to prevent us from falling and keep us standing until He comes for us.
Let’s bury that “30,000 denominations” figure deep** in** the ground. When it comes to other faith communities, we should focus our attention not on their oddballs (we all have them), but on their most persuasive shining stars.
I am not tied to it either, but I do believe it was the practice of SS that caused it to happen.
Code:
But it's when we call good evil ad evil good. When we place ourselves in an office to teach the faithful what is divine interpretation, but do not know Him... this is when they are gravely wrong.
I think you have nailed Luther’s position. He observed this very thing, Catholic priests, bishops and Popes claiming the office to teach the faithful while give the appearance they did not know Him. I think SS was created precisely to combat this situation.
 
I think that alwayswill has demonstrated that no matter how vile the person may be, God’s sovereignty can work through them to do His will. therefore, using a canon defined by those who rejected Christ would be just as valid as Pilate ordering Jesus to be crucified.
Certainly, He can use anybody for any purpose 1 Corinthians 1:27 but no matter Catholic or Protestant, we all must admit that Jesus handed the keys to Christians, not the non believers. Does not make sense to allow the Jews to dictate and chnage canon after his resurrection…
 
Perhaps you missed the reply by alwayswill but clearly one does not hve to believe in the people to be inspired by God. Her posts gave examples of people who had hearts contrary to God that He used to work His will. The formation of the canon was compared to Pharoah, Cyrus, Pontius Pilate and others who God worked through “in spite” of their contrary attitude toward God. Clearly if one believes that Jesus did not keep HIs promise to guide the Church into “all Truth”, He can still cause His will to occur through those who are opposed to Him, as the Catholics apparently were in 382 when the canon was defined.
I think that alwayswill has demonstrated that no matter how vile the person may be, God’s sovereignty can work through them to do His will. therefore, using a canon defined by those who rejected Christ would be just as valid as Pilate ordering Jesus to be crucified. …

.
Nope: that is not what I said
The point was made in bolded red font was this

"The POINT is that God uses all types of people to accomplish his Sovereign Will; that does NOT mean those kingdoms, institutions, or people are infallible!"

No where did I say the Catholic church opposed Christ
No where did I say the Catholic church rejected Christ

I plainly stated that doing the will of God does not make anyone infallible
and I offered obvious examples of that being true

The context was the dialog I was having with RC Witness:

In context:
I stated: I believe the Canon is the correct collection of writings because God is Sovereign.
RC Witness replied: How does God being sovereign help us Confirm the Canon for the whole Church?
 
I believe the Canon is the correct collection of writings because God is Sovereign.
Ok, I already responded to this. Nothing wrong, just very vague.
The Bible came from God’s sovereign Will.
examples of God’s will
like Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me………I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,”
This aspect is more in line with what we understand as Magisterial Infallibility. Though Christ’s gift to Peter was directly related to Peter acknowledging who Jesus is. And the Church has continued to profess who Jesus is.

Matt. 16
"…I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven*and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Luke 22
"…I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John 21
"…Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘feed my lambs’… a second time, ‘tend my sheep’…a third time, ‘feed my sheep.’ "
like Pharaoh: (Exodus 9:15)
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
like Pilate (John 19)
Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above
I’m afraid I have to disagree strongly with the way you have mixed two separate ways in which God accomplishes His will. Just because He accomplishes His will despite evil and men opposed to Him, does not mean they are doing His will. Is this what your church teaches? Do you have a source for it?
Did God use Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate to accomplish His will?
Yes, absolutely.
This conclusion has problems. These men were opposed to God’s will, yet God’s plan is not thwarted but manifested in spite of their actions. It was not God’s will that men crucify Jesus, yet it was God’s will that Jesus lay down His life and be crucified for their sin. Big difference.
Were the actions of Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate in accordance with the sovereign plan of God?
Yes, absolutely.
Did Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate do EXACTLY wanted God wanted to be done?
YES, absolutely
No! This is not true. They did not do what God desired of them. They were opposed to His will, yet God’s will was accomplished for our sake. “The stone that the builders rejected, shall become the head cornerstone.”
Are Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate infallible?
NO!
Agree. And they were not given the Keys.
The POINT is that God uses all types of people to accomplish his Sovereign Will; that does NOT mean those kingdoms, institutions, or people are infallible!
Right, His will is certainly not manifested through the means of Church infallibility in most cases. Church infallibility is the Church’s gift to Confirm His will on matters of faith and morals.

Matthew 18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.*Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.*Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
This is not a rhetorical questions to you.
Do you think God allowed any books to be left out or to be added by mistake?
No! We believe He acted infallible through the Church leaders, in communion with Rome’s confirmation, and so established His approved Sacred Scripture. It is therefore all that He intended to be… no more, no less.

These men, who fixed a Canon, we’re co-operation with God’s will. Pilate and Judas were serving their own will.
 
I stated “My understating of any writing breathed out by God does not determines its authority or its inerrancy.”
So my friend; is the BIBLE in error; or die God Lie:eek:
or to state it another way:
My (or anyone’s) misunderstanding Scripture does not make Scripture less of an authority
Agreed:thumbsup: TRUTH has to be singular per defined Issue
My (or anyone’s) misunderstanding Scripture does mean Scripture is in error.
Taking you literally here would mean that it the READER of Scripture; NOT God who determines the bibles versatility:
Do you agree with that?
NO!
Is that in agreement with Christianity?
NO!

Blessings,
 
I have a question…

Is it possible that we could be wrong, and some of the books in the Bible don’t belong in the Bible, and some that aren’t in the Bible actually belong there? What if we are wrong, that James, or Hebrews, or Revelations were not Inspired, and the letters of Clement were? How do we know we got it right, for certain… to say, “This book, is the written Word of God, and therefore it is Inerrant and Infallible.”???
EITHER THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE OR THE BIBLE IS A FRAUD; NOT INSPIRED BY GOD:eek:

So in you’re opinion, which is it:shrug:

2nd Timothy 3:16-17

[16]" All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."
 
EITHER THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE OR THE BIBLE IS A FRAUD; NOT INSPIRED BY GOD:eek:

So in you’re opinion, which is it:shrug:
I believe the Church is used by God to Confirm for us these matters. He established this promise on Peter and then the Apostles. Peter’s office Confirms the others, but not that the others can’t compel and convict him to his final pronouncment. Even the least in the kingdom can move the Pope to his conclusion.

But Scripture took a process to Confirm as a canon. So the canon of Scripture relied on Tradition and Infallibility, in order to know it’s table of contents and value. God gives Tradition, Infallibility and value.
 
Very well stated.

Personally, and I must be honest, I feel comfortable defending pretty much all doctrine except the Immaculate Conception because the lack of scriptural support and Patristic writings on this.

But if Church says it, we can be confident that it was already a organic belief from within.
Greetings Lenten_ashes:)

St. Irenaeus exclaimed; “Hence not a few of the early fathers gladly assert”…comparing Mary to Eve, the early fathers called Mary “The Mother of the living”, in fact the early fathers frequently claimed; “Death through Eve, Life through Mary”.
You see the early fathers professed an apostolic faith in Mary early on before the canonization of the bible books.

When Pope Pius IX in 1854 dogmatized the Immaculate Conception, the Church used Ephesians 1:3-4. God chose Mary before the foundation of the world. Genesis 3:15 speaks of the power of God, that can place an enmity between the Woman, (Mary) and her Son (Jesus) and Satan (sin).

The Eastern tradition also hold Mary in high esteem when they call the Mother of God; “All Holy = Panagia who is free from ANY STAIN OF SIN”. In short there are many Patristic Fathers who held Mary in high esteem, and many monks and Saints had a special devotion of love for the blessed Virgin Mary. Both East and Western Catholic Saints write and speak of Mary’s sinless life.

My faith in God, expresses that sin cannot touch God. Thus Mary," the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by the virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin" Pope Pius IX.

Pope Pius IX proclamation of the Immaculate Conception is an apostolic faith that was followed by signs and wonders, which “God added His testimony by signs, wonders, various acts of power and distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His Will” (Hebrews 2:4, Mark 16:20).

These signs and wonders were for the unbelieving two thirds of the world Mass population who proclaimed a man made ideology against God in Communism, which professed that “God does not intervene with man”, “God does not exist”.
The proclamation of the Immaculate Conception , proclaimed from Peter’s Chair, proved that God does intervene with the human race, followed by signs and wonders. This particular beast (Communism) would be given a mortal blow, by the Woman (Mary) and her seed = Jesus Christ. Thus the walls of communism came tumbling down

I give thanks to God for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and so should our Russian Orthodox Church’s, because for the first time in many centuries they are free from secular powers. But that is another thread.

To be continued;
 
continue;

Now to relate this to your OP. There are many more scriptures that support the Immaculate Conception. John the Baptist is the greatest of all men born of woman, why? One reason he was baptized with the Holy Spirit while in the womb of Elizabeth only after she heard the voice of the Mother of her “LORD”= Adonai = God. Is God’s power limited to those only after they are born? No, God has saved those before the foundation of the world.

St. Peter’s first public gospel proclamation was made orally in Jerusalem, and used the prophets Joel followed by signs and wonders during Pentecost (Acts 2:14-21), who introduced a New Way through baptism into the Kingdom of Heaven, not circumcision. Did Peter catch any negativity after he proclaimed the New Way? Yes he did. Pope Pius IX is no different, when God testified to their proclamations with signs and wonders.

Here is why both St. Peter and Pope Pius IX got it right. God blessed Peter and the Church with a divine gift that is overlooked by Sola Scripturalist.

This is the gift the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church received personally from God.
Luke 24:45…“Then He (Jesus) opened their minds to understand the scripture’S.”
Both Peter and Pope Pius IX used scripture in the Sensus Plenoir= Fullest Sense, which is fulfilling the Old Testament with a deeper meaning intended by God, that does not contradict the human author when he is writing in the Literal local tense.

This Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture applied with the gift Jesus gives the Church, when scripture reveals Peter’s baptism and Pope Pius IX Immaculate Conception, take the Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture which takes the Literal Word’s of scripture , which according to Jesus who gifted the Church to see the light in scripture, the fullest revelation or development, with “opened minds to understand the scriptures”.

It is reasonably understandable for the Sola Scripturalist who is unable to see the scriptures using (the light from) Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture, which reveals the fullest revelation or further development of understanding revelation, because the Sola Scripturalist has no Oral Apostolic Tradition to adhere to divine revelation. Only what a Sola Scripturalist can read from the ancient text. Part of the divine revelation reflects the deposit of faith both in oral and written form.

Sola Scripturalist is lacking or rejects the Apostolic Oral sacred Tradition.
What gives rise to the many different types of Sola Scripturalist which splinters in faith, doctrine and biblical interpretations, that haunt’s the Sola Scriptura practice and theology.
Sola Scripturalist do not bind themselves or unite themselves to one interpretation of the biblical text, thus the many denominations and Evangelical Church’s continue to splinter or divide their communities by a different Sola Scriptura theological interpretation.

Here is a short list that haunts the practice or doctrine of Sola Scriptura, who have no authority or visible head to direct them through scripture, when Sola Scriptura is their main authority which misleads them away from the Apostolic divine revelations of Jesus Christ, so far as to invent their own biblical theology.

This biblical theology which Sola Scripturalist subscribe too, opened a Pandora’s box of personal interpretations.

Sola Scripturalist enter into a chaotic biblical theology, when they do not limit themselves to a correct sense of scripture and differ among other Sola Scripturalist to any of the following, the Literal text, allegorical text, mystical sense, spiritual sense, symbolic sense, historical sense, Patristic sense, fundamental sense of scripture, and I dare add another exegesis element to which compounds the difficulty for a Sola Scripturalist, and that is applying the Heideggerian Hermeneutics which is related to the role of biblical languages.
What is interesting is that most, not all Sola Scripturalist, will use such tools mentioned above, to interpret scripture to disprove the Catholic Church’s Apostolic faith.

In defense of Martin Luther; He rejected an extreme allegorizing of the biblical text and stressed his new Sola Scriptura theology on historical background and literal sense of scripture. But! we must remember; Luther remained firmly convinced of the Christological Character of the Old Testament and that Luther continued his typological exegesis which became questionable to learned biblica scholars.

In 1941 Roman PBC (Church pronouncements) condemned any fundamental attempt to revive the Patristic, Spiritual and Symbolic exegesis that removes the Literal Sense of Sacred Scripture.

The Magisterium is not limited to one form of biblical sense of scripture. Although the Church put’s forward the four senses for Catholic exegesis to use with sacred scripture. 1. Historical or Literal sense, 2. Allegorical or Christological sense, 3. Topological or Moral or Anthropological, 4. Anagogical or Eschatological.

When the Magisterium uses scripture to defend or proclaim a developed understanding of divine revelation. That proclamation will not and cannot conflict with Oral Sacred Tradition and written Sacred Scripture. Catholic doctrine is not SOLELY based on the spiritual or mystical sense of scripture.

When we hear the scriptures in Mass, we hear them, as if we hear them for the first time every time with the Sacred Oral Tradition.

A Sola Scripturalist rejects the Apostolic faith, when the Sola Scripturalist holds the written text as it’s final authority over all others, which lacks the Apostolic practice, divine given authority, and Sacred Oral Apostolic Traditions in practice unchanged in the Catholic Church.
Peace be with you
 
continue;

Now to relate this to your OP. There are many more scriptures that support the Immaculate Conception. John the Baptist is the greatest of all men born of woman, why? One reason he was baptized with the Holy Spirit while in the womb of Elizabeth only after she heard the voice of the Mother of her “LORD”= Adonai = God. Is God’s power limited to those only after they are born? No, God has saved those before the foundation of the world.

St. Peter’s first public gospel proclamation was made orally in Jerusalem, and used the prophets Joel followed by signs and wonders during Pentecost (Acts 2:14-21), who introduced a New Way through baptism into the Kingdom of Heaven, not circumcision. Did Peter catch any negativity after he proclaimed the New Way? Yes he did. Pope Pius IX is no different, when God testified to their proclamations with signs and wonders.

Here is why both St. Peter and Pope Pius IX got it right. God blessed Peter and the Church with a divine gift that is overlooked by Sola Scripturalist.

This is the gift the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church received personally from God.
Luke 24:45…“Then He (Jesus) opened their minds to understand the scripture’S.”
Both Peter and Pope Pius IX used scripture in the Sensus Plenoir= Fullest Sense, which is fulfilling the Old Testament with a deeper meaning intended by God, that does not contradict the human author when he is writing in the Literal local tense.

This Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture applied with the gift Jesus gives the Church, when scripture reveals Peter’s baptism and Pope Pius IX Immaculate Conception, take the Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture which takes the Literal Word’s of scripture , which according to Jesus who gifted the Church to see the light in scripture, the fullest revelation or development, with “opened minds to understand the scriptures”.

It is reasonably understandable for the Sola Scripturalist who is unable to see the scriptures using (the light from) Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture, which reveals the fullest revelation or further development of understanding revelation, because the Sola Scripturalist has no Oral Apostolic Tradition to adhere to divine revelation. Only what a Sola Scripturalist can read from the ancient text. Part of the divine revelation reflects the deposit of faith both in oral and written form.

Sola Scripturalist is lacking or rejects the Apostolic Oral sacred Tradition.
What gives rise to the many different types of Sola Scripturalist which splinters in faith, doctrine and biblical interpretations, that haunt’s the Sola Scriptura practice and theology.
Sola Scripturalist do not bind themselves or unite themselves to one interpretation of the biblical text, thus the many denominations and Evangelical Church’s continue to splinter or divide their communities by a different Sola Scriptura theological interpretation.

Here is a short list that haunts the practice or doctrine of Sola Scriptura, who have no authority or visible head to direct them through scripture, when Sola Scriptura is their main authority which misleads them away from the Apostolic divine revelations of Jesus Christ, so far as to invent their own biblical theology.

This biblical theology which Sola Scripturalist subscribe too, opened a Pandora’s box of personal interpretations.

Sola Scripturalist enter into a chaotic biblical theology, when they do not limit themselves to a correct sense of scripture and differ among other Sola Scripturalist to any of the following, the Literal text, allegorical text, mystical sense, spiritual sense, symbolic sense, historical sense, Patristic sense, fundamental sense of scripture, and I dare add another exegesis element to which compounds the difficulty for a Sola Scripturalist, and that is applying the Heideggerian Hermeneutics which is related to the role of biblical languages.
What is interesting is that most, not all Sola Scripturalist, will use such tools mentioned above, to interpret scripture to disprove the Catholic Church’s Apostolic faith.

In defense of Martin Luther; He rejected an extreme allegorizing of the biblical text and stressed his new Sola Scriptura theology on historical background and literal sense of scripture. But! we must remember; Luther remained firmly convinced of the Christological Character of the Old Testament and that Luther continued his typological exegesis which became questionable to learned biblica scholars.

In 1941 Roman PBC (Church pronouncements) condemned any fundamental attempt to revive the Patristic, Spiritual and Symbolic exegesis that removes the Literal Sense of Sacred Scripture.

The Magisterium is not limited to one form of biblical sense of scripture. Although the Church put’s forward the four senses for Catholic exegesis to use with sacred scripture. 1. Historical or Literal sense, 2. Allegorical or Christological sense, 3. Topological or Moral or Anthropological, 4. Anagogical or Eschatological.

u
Greetings, Gabriel!

Thanks for your posts!

I definitely can see the ECF’s consensus that Mary is the new Eve…that the evil done through Eve was undone through Mary.

Also, the protoevangelium combined with Revelation chapter 12 is solid evidence that the blessed Mother is much more important and revered than protestants give her credit for.

But, you know, they want everything spelled out and explicit and unfortunately that is just not feasible, imo. And as you pointed out, SS is the root of this position they take.
 
Greetings, Gabriel!

Thanks for your posts!

I definitely can see the ECF’s consensus that Mary is the new Eve…that the evil done through Eve was undone through Mary.

Also, the protoevangelium combined with Revelation chapter 12 is solid evidence that the blessed Mother is much more important and revered than protestants give her credit for.

But, you know, they want everything spelled out and explicit and unfortunately that is just not feasible, imo. And as you pointed out, SS is the root of this position they take.
Your welcome:)

The ECF’s as well as Luke’s gospel point to Mary’s sinless life that is found to be highly favored by God.

What do you think of Luke revealing, Jesus opened the mind of the Church to understand all the scriptures Sensus Plenoir in their fullness deeper meaning intended by God, to understand and develop more fully divine revelation as Jesus revealed to them?

St. Paul also records a gift in 1Cor.2:14-16, which the Church has to discern spiritual realities in spiritual terms. The Immaculate Conception when studied from a Patristic and Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture comes to light from both a contemplative and sensible and logical understanding.
 
Your welcome:)

The ECF’s as well as Luke’s gospel point to Mary’s sinless life that is found to be highly favored by God.

What do you think of Luke revealing, Jesus opened the mind of the Church to understand all the scriptures Sensus Plenoir in their fullness deeper meaning intended by God, to understand and develop more fully divine revelation as Jesus revealed to them?

St. Paul also records a gift in 1Cor.2:14-16, which the Church has to discern spiritual realities in spiritual terms. The Immaculate Conception when studied from a Patristic and Sensus Plenoir sense of scripture comes to light from both a contemplative and sensible and logical understanding.
I can tell you as a former protestant that those words in red, Jesus words in Matthew 12:48-49 and him referring to her as “woman” in John 19:26 seemed almost disrespectful to me on the surface. Not only because he did not address her as mother, but because he refers to some random person, the woman at the well, as the same term…“woman”. John 4:21.

Despite the great description of her by Luke, those other scriptures i mentioned make Marian devotion tough to justify as a protestant.

Of course digging deeper into the scriptures and Church teaching, it became evident to me that she is the mother of the Church and ark of the new covenant,…and a powerful intercessor for us as Christians.
 
I can tell you as a former protestant that those words in red, Jesus words in Matthew 12:48-49 and him referring to her as “woman” in John 19:26 seemed almost disrespectful to me on the surface. Not only because he did not address her as mother, but because he refers to some random person, the woman at the well, as the same term…“woman”. John 4:21.

Despite the great description of her by Luke, those other scriptures i mentioned make Marian devotion tough to justify as a protestant.

Of course digging deeper into the scriptures and Church teaching, it became evident to me that she is the mother of the Church and ark of the new covenant,…and a powerful intercessor for us as Christians.
Delighted with your post’s Lenten_ashes

St. Paul references Jesus as the new Adam, using the typological sense to scripture. The offices to which Jesus fulfills is Messianic, Davidic King, prophet, Son of man, High priest of God, Son of the Father (second person of the Trinity) who’s nature is fully human and fully divine. When Jesus speaks in scripture especially to His Mother, we need to reflect from which nature and which office Jesus speaks from.

At the Wedding feast (Jn.2), Jesus dignifies His Mother with the Title “Woman” from Genesis 3:15, Jesus is speaking as the prophet of God on earth and as the second person of the Trinity, God now reveals the “Woman” pronounced after the fall, is now present, but His hour has not yet come to deliver the mortal blow to that lying serpent.
At the foot of the cross, Jesus see’s His Mother, again dignifies her with the title “Woman” as the new Eve = Mother of all the living, gives her to His disciple John, whom He loved.

John reveals this Woman again in Revelations 12:13-17, who is the Woman, God divinely protected from sin (Immaculate Conception) and the dragon. This same Woman has offspring, John in particular, the dragon became angry with the Woman because Sin could not taint her, that the dragon goes off to wage war against the rest of her offspring. Who are the rest of her offspring? John reveals who they are; vs.17 "the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

Thus all those in every age who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus are the offspring of the Mother, Jesus dignified with the title of the new Eve = Woman = Mother of all the living.

I can see when a Protestant reads those versus you mentioned would appear in the negative or a rebuke, when read on the surface.

The Samaritan Woman at Jacobs Well, reflects all those who" worship what they do not know". The Samaritan woman is reflective of the 10 northern Tribes who rebelled against God and separated themselves from the King of Judah. These Samaritans were conquered five different times, thus the Woman at the well, had five husbands, who introduced to them five different deities. Jesus came to call His fallen away bride (Woman) back home where the Lion (Jesus) of the Tribe of Judah will reign eternally. For it is at the well where the nuptials for marriage are made.

Thus the Woman at the well portrays the harlot bride, who converts back to God. Thus we have two distinct personages being portrayed under the title of Woman. One Woman is a bride. The Virgin Mother whom Jesus dignifies with the title Woman is the new Eve, Mother of all the living.

Grant it, there is much more reflection to each of these scriptures. When the ECF’s spoke of these mysteries and reflected upon them, it is not hard to see, why many of the Saints and Martyrs, had a special devotion to our Lady as Davidic Queen and Mother of the living.
Without the faith that stems from the Oral Sacred Traditions, it is difficult to view sacred Scripture with apostolic lenses.

Peace be with you
 
Delighted with your post’s Lenten_ashes

St. Paul references Jesus as the new Adam, using the typological sense to scripture. The offices to which Jesus fulfills is Messianic, Davidic King, prophet, Son of man, High priest of God, Son of the Father (second person of the Trinity) who’s nature is fully human and fully divine. When Jesus speaks in scripture especially to His Mother, we need to reflect from which nature and which office Jesus speaks from.

At the Wedding feast (Jn.2), Jesus dignifies His Mother with the Title “Woman” from Genesis 3:15, Jesus is speaking as the prophet of God on earth and as the second person of the Trinity, God now reveals the “Woman” pronounced after the fall, is now present, but His hour has not yet come to deliver the mortal blow to that lying serpent.
At the foot of the cross, Jesus see’s His Mother, again dignifies her with the title “Woman” as the new Eve = Mother of all the living, gives her to His disciple John, whom He loved.

John reveals this Woman again in Revelations 12:13-17, who is the Woman, God divinely protected from sin (Immaculate Conception) and the dragon. This same Woman has offspring, John in particular, the dragon became angry with the Woman because Sin could not taint her, that the dragon goes off to wage war against the rest of her offspring. Who are the rest of her offspring? John reveals who they are; vs.17 "the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

Thus all those in every age who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus are the offspring of the Mother, Jesus dignified with the title of the new Eve = Woman = Mother of all the living.

I can see when a Protestant reads those versus you mentioned would appear in the negative or a rebuke, when read on the surface.

The Samaritan Woman at Jacobs Well, reflects all those who" worship what they do not know". The Samaritan woman is reflective of the 10 northern Tribes who rebelled against God and separated themselves from the King of Judah. These Samaritans were conquered five different times, thus the Woman at the well, had five husbands, who introduced to them five different deities. Jesus came to call His fallen away bride (Woman) back home where the Lion (Jesus) of the Tribe of Judah will reign eternally. For it is at the well where the nuptials for marriage are made.

Thus the Woman at the well portrays the harlot bride, who converts back to God. Thus we have two distinct personages being portrayed under the title of Woman. One Woman is a bride. The Virgin Mother whom Jesus dignifies with the title Woman is the new Eve, Mother of all the living.

Grant it, there is much more reflection to each of these scriptures. When the ECF’s spoke of these mysteries and reflected upon them, it is not hard to see, why many of the Saints and Martyrs, had a special devotion to our Lady as Davidic Queen and Mother of the living.
Without the faith that stems from the Oral Sacred Traditions, it is difficult to view sacred Scripture with apostolic lenses.

Peace be with you
Gabriel, thank you for that detailed post.

the woman at the well explanation was fascinating.

Let me ask you your interpretation of Revelation 12:2?
Revelation 12:2King James Version (KJV)
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
Birth pains are the result of original sin
Genesis 3:16Amplified Bible (AMP)
16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth;

In pain you will give birth to children;
Yet your desire and longing will be for your husband,
And he will rule [with authority] over you and be responsible for you.”
So how do we as Catholics reconcile this since our Lady has no original sin?

I do think this passage is referring to her, also the ending of chapter 11 describes the Ark of the covenant which is her. But I think it’s also likely describing either Israel or the Church as well. But the birth pains seems to be a somewhat valid protestant rebuttal.

What say you?

God bless you.
 
Birth pains are the result of original sin

So how do we as Catholics reconcile this since our Lady has no original sin?

I do think this passage is referring to her, also the ending of chapter 11 describes the Ark of the covenant which is her. But I think it’s also likely describing either Israel or the Church as well. But the birth pains seems to be a somewhat valid protestant rebuttal.

What say you?

God bless you.
In the Catholic understanding, Mary had no original sin, nor did she have birth pains with Jesus, nor did she have other children later, so she never had birth pains. Protestants would (I think) say she probably did have birth pains with Jesus, probably did have other children later. The details of Jesus’ birth are from Tradition, not necessarily dogma, unlike the Immaculate Conception which is.

It varies, how Protestants resolve the question of Jesus having no original sin. Writers I have seen hesitate to attribute anything unique to Mary. Some try to go around Mary by saying that original sin is passed through the father only; thus, since Joseph was not Jesus bio father, Jesus avoided original sin. Other Protestants try to address that in some other way.

This is an example an unanswered question in Scripture. Catholic Tradition looks at Scripture and comes to a conclusion which appears compatible; and Protestant writers complain about “unscriptural teachings”. But that does not stop Protestant writers from theorizing many, sometimes contradictory explanations, that try to answer questions raised by not answered by Scripture. The Catholic Magisterium is very visible, explicit, and easily criticized. Sola Scriptura equivalents to the Magisterium are scattered in many places, generally are implicit, indirect, change frequently, hard to pin down; like trying to fasten Jello to the wall. Often when I have tried to talk (ok, argue) with Sola Scriptura supporters, they inevitably rely less on the Bible than on someone’s explanations of passages.
 
Gabriel, thank you for that detailed post.

the woman at the well explanation was fascinating.

Let me ask you your interpretation of Revelation 12:2?

Birth pains are the result of original sin

So how do we as Catholics reconcile this since our Lady has no original sin?

I do think this passage is referring to her, also the ending of chapter 11 describes the Ark of the covenant which is her. But I think it’s also likely describing either Israel or the Church as well. But the birth pains seems to be a somewhat valid protestant rebuttal.

What say you?

God bless you.
Catholics look at all apocalyptic literature as multivalent, which means one image can carry multiple meanings. This image can also been understood as the nation of Israel bringing birth to the Messiah, and the Church, bringing forth Christainity.
 
I believe the Church is used by God to Confirm for us these matters. He established this promise on Peter and then the Apostles. Peter’s office Confirms the others, but not that the others can’t compel and convict him to his final pronouncment. Even the least in the kingdom can move the Pope to his conclusion.

But Scripture took a process to Confirm as a canon. So the canon of Scripture relied on Tradition and Infallibility, in order to know it’s table of contents and value. God gives Tradition, Infallibility and value.
My FRIEND,

I have not the slightest idea of what you’re point here is.🤷

I did however notice that you did not answer my question directly. [NOT necessary that you do so]

BUT I would like to better understand what you’re trying to point out to me:)
 
God said He will “greatly multiply your pain in childbirth”

It doesn’t necessarily mean it was painless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top