Protestants and Mary

[fbl9]

Truly, but even the early church fathers state that ALL who were born in this world (flesh) HAS the stain of sin, therefore those who are made by consecration of the espoused create a sinful nature

the stain of orginal sin is not created.it is carried on not created anew in each person.

.

Baptism is a beautiful experience however, Jesus himself demonstrates that being baptized by the Holy spirit is far more important. Consider when Peter was speaking to an immense crowed and as he was speaking the holy spirit filled up in them, also note without first being baptized by water. I am not saying one shouldn’t be baptized with water but it is far better to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. And yes to acquire the father and the son and the Holy Spirit one must first confess that Jesus is Lord…

What did St.Peter do? He commanded that they should be baptised.with water…He did not say oh they have been baptised with the HOly Spirit so they don’t need to be baptised.

 

[Seraphim25]

To know that one is correct does not mean one is arrogant. Arrogance is when one believes one is correct without reference to some outside authority to support that belief.

If I were to say that water is H2O and be very certain I am correct, it would not be arrogant for me to do so.

There are some areas where objective truth is knowable.

This is why the protestant religion IS arrogant. Because it stems from Luther’s arrogance. His arrogance in thinking that he (singularly) had a better grasp of truth than all those who came before him, the Fathers, Doctors and Saints fo the Church. THAT is arrogance.

And that same arrogance is displayed everytime a two bit pastor starts his own church. They always seem to know better than the rest.

Our claim to truth, we have not arrived at by ourselves.

Like those who claim that water is H2O we rely on authority other than our own pidly brains.

Tell me is it arrogance if one tries to use abstract thought and critical reasoning for certian beliefs that don’t seem to find support in Gods holy word? Or is it being prejudice about understanding both sides and still trying to fill in holes? No, both of these terms can not be placed on anybody. Not even Luther who yes I agree should not have left the church, but so did all of the people to escape the oppression of the church. Hey you brought history up not me. the H20 I see your point but it is weak because there is concrete evidence that water is made up of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen. When dealing with spiritual matters that seem to disembark on Gods word it dosen’t become concrete any more but conjectures and theories. Whether good or bad I no not only God knows and knows my heart. Which is why a lot of people who were once Catholic are no longer Catholic because they felt something was out of place. And you can’t just stereotype them and say well obviously it was them not the church either because we don’t necessarily know why they left.

But when I talk to some or when I hear of others talking to them the picture painted is somewhat clear. Some felt that after leaving the Catholic faith they found Jesus. I mean this is a profound statement considering it coming from Catholic own ranks. some have felt that the tradition and the redundancy of prayers got in the way and felt that it was merely words and not heart felt like Luke warm. Others say it was Mary herself that they left because they felt an unsurpassed glorifying and divination of her and felt that it is too close to idolatry.

 

[Seraphim25]

the stain of orginal sin is not created.it is carried on not created anew in each person.What did St.Peter do? He commanded that they should be baptised.with water…He did not say oh they have been baptised with the HOly Spirit so they don’t need to be baptised.

Well whatever, the concept is still the same we are all sinners.

In regards to that statement I would agree but people experience the holy spirit at the moment they repent of their evil ways and confess with your own lips that Jesus is Lord without being baptized first.

 

[Dokimas]

Good Fella: I’m telling you because you replied to me, not Elvis.

I see, it was you take made the off topic statement about baptism first and wanted my comment. Actually, you were making fun of protestants, if my memory serves me correctly.​

Still wondering why you want me to get back to the topic without apologizing for getting me off topic. (Not that I care were the discussion leads but you’re making the big deal about being off topic.)

 

[Dokimas]

To know that one is correct does not mean one is arrogant. Arrogance is when one believes one is correct without reference to some outside authority to support that belief.
Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ar·ro·gance
Pronunciation: \ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions​

If you notice in my original post I put know in ’ '. I guess I should have explained. You are correct that arrogance has nothing to do with knowing. It has everything to do with attitude. That’s why I said you are the one that is arrogant because of you superiority mannor.​

Not that I care personally, but I find it interesting that you and Elvis ‘name call’ but too often are what you two claim others are. I just thought you would like to be aware of this observation.

 

[Dokimas]

Not opinon but facts. No arguing with facts. They’re simply facts.

Sorry but it does; There is no getting away from that. I know it grates doesn’t it .

Sad fact again for you but we do. Read Matthew 16.

Only happens when you refuse to face facts and the truth. The debate was ended long ago. Many converts from all denominations have realized the truth. Much, much more erudite and learned men and women than you (and this is not to belittle your intellect in any way) but have fought the same thing. Fought the truth, fought the fact. But in the end facts and truth won.

Loving it. Because I am not in the merry go round. Hop off and join me.

Very well put.​

However, it’s the same merry-go-round: "My church …, because it (RCC/CC) says it’s so.​

Are you discounting all the FAR MORE intelligent men and women than me that care for catholics but have historically and Biblically come to the conclusion on several matters, the RCC (CC) is incorrect?

 

[Dokimas]

Good Fella: God cannot tolerate sin, so Mary had to be sinless to be in such intimate union with God, whose Son she conceived and bore. Jesus is the son of both God the Father and Mary, so like the Divine Word in his sacred humanity, she had to be sinless. God’s close presence not only imparts, but also demands holiness of a person. The Scriptures make it clear (Ex3:5; Deut 23:14; 1 Cor 3:17; 1 Jn 3:56).

The Greek word for church is ‘ekklesia’ which means ‘called out ones’. The church, which I believe God inhabits, is made up of people who are sinners like you and me. If God inhabits us, then He would have no problem with Mary being a sinner.​

Of course my argument is worthless if God isn’t in His church or His children.

 

[Dokimas]

No - I was answering yours as well.
But - at least Seraphim give answers, though wrong and poses questions, though ill-conceived. At least he contributes to the conversation.
I get nothing from you but vagueness, opinions and arrogance . . .

Would you call it arrogance when a person is incorrect and just won’t admit it? I have yet to see you admit you are wrong. From your own definition of ‘false witness’ you have been one and yet you refuse to address the issue, all the while you continue to throw the term at others.

 

[Dokimas]

My issue with you is that you call yourself "Catholic" and you’re not. That makes you a liar who misrepresents the Church.

IYO, was Ted Kennedy a true Catholic?

 

[Dokimas]

Don’t insult me with your venomous words! It is not up to you to question my place within the brotherhood of Christs body. Ones salvation is attained by ones own allegiance to Christ himself. If you deny this then you deny the words that came forth from God himself. All those who call upon my name shall be saved. and in another place any person who confesses with his own lips that Jesus is Lord will be saved. Granted there is more to it than just confessing one MUST walk it as well. However, I would rather show and prove my faith to my fellow brother rather than boast about what the church says you must do to abtain salvation. For Gods word is exquisitely clear on this that who ever believes and does the will of God shall never perish but inherit eternal Glory! Thanks and peace to the invisible God to the glory of his name!

Don’t let Elvis upset you. Don’t be insulted by him either (please read PS 119:165 in the KJV).​

If I read Romans 2 (I think its Ro 2) somewhat correctly, theres a danger for a person who judges others for something then does the same thing. We should feel compassion for this man.​

Maybe I should do a better job of practicing what I say. We’ll see if I can.

 

[Dokimas]

If Mary did not have more children than Jesus, would she be going against the command to have children?​

Let’s assume everything the RCC teaches about Mary is correct up through the birth of Jesus, then why was it important for Mary to remain a virgin?

 

[Dokimas]

If I read Romans 2 (I think its Ro 2) somewhat correctly, theres a danger for a person who judges others for something then does the same thing. We should feel compassion for this man.

BTW, Seraphim, this comment wasn’t about you.

 

[benedictus2]

I guess I’d agree with both of you. My concern is more for Mary that she’s possibly been put in a place she doesn’t want to be.

We have not placed Mary in a place where she doesn’t want to be.

If the honor we have given her is so distasteful to her, I think we would not have had so many apparitions and so many miracles because of her.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t mean to be so blunt but I quess you want me to be. So here goes.​

Your church says it’s been around for 2000 yrs and that Peter is the first pope (I guess because your church thinks he started the church in Rome).

No we do not hink Peter is the first pope because he started the Church in Rome. Peter is considered the first Pope only because He is the first prime bishop. He was the one appointed by Christ to be shepherd of His (Christ’s ) flock.

Historical evidence reveals your church as we know it did not strart for many years after Peter. As it’s been shown, the ‘second pope’ was believed to be ordained by Paul not Peter. Paul was in Rome before Peter probably making Paul the first apostle of Rome.

I am not quite sure where the “it has been shown” is because it has NOT been shown to be so.
Perhaps Paul was in Rome before Peter but Paul was not the Bishop of Rome. Peter was.

And our Church is the same church that Christ established upon Peter (that is why protestants are so dead set against recognizing Peter as prime bishop becuase it completely weakens their case once this truth is accepted).

There is no evidence that Peter took on the title of pope. I’m sure he could care less.

No he did not take on the title of Pope. But Pope he was. All that pope means is papa, father. Because he is the shepherd that Christ chose to shepherd His (Christ’s), that is why he is called Pope.

One of the official titles of the the Pope is Servus Servorum Dei,- Servant of the Servants of God.

If the President of the United States should deem the title rather pompus and prefer to be called just Mr., it would not change the fact that he is the President of the United States becuase he holds that office.

The fact your church claims he was the first pope of its church is a weak argument for your church being the correct church and that it goes back to Jesus.

Well not exactly. Our claim is that Christ established only one (uno, eine,une) church. Christ promised the gates of hell will not prevail against it and that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. If we believe Christ was telling the truth and is capable of keeping His promise, then that church which He established 2000 years ago is still with us today. Only one church is able to claim that and provide historical support. That Church is the Catholic Church. There are no other candidates near enough.
Here is a link to the listing of the main Christian Churches and their founders.
http://www.whostartedyourchurch.com/

As been pointed out by some here, some of the teachings of your church can’t be supported by Scripture without really stretching meaning beyond understanding.

Okay, which one? As far as I know, it is the teaching of the protestant churches that can’t be supported without somehow mangling and chopping the word of God. And this is quite understandable because Luther started this kind of mangling. He had a preconceived theology and tried to make the Bible say what he wanted it to say so when it wouldn’t he decided to get rid of the books of the Bible that did not support his theology.

Whenever any one or group tells me I can’t understand the Bible without their understanding (slant) there seems to be a red flag flying in my face. That makes me look even harder and I’d have to say, when I’ve looked harder, often the Bible says something different.

Okay, give me an example. Please deal in facts Dokimas.

I was glad to take a better look at Mary’s life. I became to understand she’s a wonderful example of faith, whose faith we all should consider. After a closer look, the wonderfulness of Mary in spite of being a sinner is obvious and equally as obvious is that your church’s believe go way beyond anything the Bible says.

Actually not. Some beliefs about Mary may be extra Biblical but this does not mean they contradict what is Biblically proclaimed about her.

 

[benedictus2]

There were letters circulating around the churches of the 1st century written by early disciples and apostles.

Correct so far. But not just letters. Gospels as well.

The letters that were finally put together are what we call the New Testament Scriptures.

Wrong.
Here is short history of the NT taken from this link http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm

Date

Event**AD **

51-125

The New Testament books are written.140

Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul. 200

The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. 367

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D… 382

Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. 393

the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.397

The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …AD787

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.1442

AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.1536

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. 1546

At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

Our hope is that God wanted them to be found and kept so later generations would learn about the Gospel.

It cannot just be our hope. It has to be a certainty. If we only hope that the Bible is the word of God then that is not good enough. Because it may or may not be the word of God. We have to be sure that it is indeed the Word of God. But how can we be sure of that?

Over a couple of centuries, there were many such letters. In about 300 AD, a council desided whick of the letters would be Scripture and which would not be Scripture. Those not chosen still had value as historical.​

Again, our hope is that God had His hand in the decision. It is His Gospel and His church. Was that council or part of it going to one day be called the Roman Catholic Church - sure. Do they get all the credit, or any for that matter - well I guess they should if they want to share in the glory that only belongs to God. You see God has used sinners since the very beginning and He still uses sinners.

Refer to my above response.

The question is will you give God all the glory or will you userp some for your church?

This is not an “OR” situation. By recognizing and following His Church, we give glory to God. Where the Body is there also is the Head.

God open our eyes to His Truth and draw us into His service.

May He do so in your case that you may finally see the Truth and so serve Him through the Church that He founded here on earth.

 

[benedictus2]

Faith or Merit go hand in hand. Abraham had faith that Sarah should bear a son and therefore that act was counted to him as righteous. So the merit of his faith that he believed God would do this was an act not just a blind set of accomplishments. Therefore, to prove whether or not we are truly christian is by our love for others and for God. Ones faith can not be secure without some type of demonstration on which one believes the book of James is a perfect example. However, it is NOT us who are doing the good works but God in us

If it is not us who is doing the good works but God in us, does it stand to reason that it is not us who is having the faith but God in us?

By the mere act of Mary stating let it be done to me according to your word. Is a faithful statement and by that statement it was merited to her as a righteous act. Unlike John the baptists father who disbelieved and doubted was counted to him as sin and the penalty was becoming a mute for however long God willed.

Well actually there is some error here. Both Mary and Zechariah questioned the angel. But it is quite interesting that the angel’s responses differed in each case.

Luke 1:18 -20 - Then Zechariah said to the angel,** “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years**.” And the angel said to him in reply, “I am Gabriel, who stand before God. I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news. But now you will be speechless and unable to talk until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at their proper time.”

Luke 1:34-35 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Mary’s Fiat came only after the angel has explained the “how can this be”.

 

[Dokimas]

No we do not hink Peter is the first pope because he started the Church in Rome. Peter is considered the first Pope only because He is the first prime bishop. He was the one appointed by Christ to be shepherd of His (Christ’s ) flock.
As I’ve said, as I read the Bible, James is predominant in Jerusalem and Paul is predominant in the Gentile world. Paul is also predominant in the writing of the NT. There seems to be no evidence that Peter is THE leader in the 1st century church. Sure God used him greatly and wonderfully, that’s NOT the issue. It’s your claim he is the first pope.

I am not quite sure where the “it has been shown” is because it has NOT been shown to be so. ]Perhaps Paul was in Rome before Peter but Paul was not the Bishop of Rome. Peter was.

True; but they are inconsistent with the Bible.

 

[Dokimas]

Quote: Dokimas​

There were letters circulating around the churches of the 1st century written by early disciples and apostles.

Benedictus: Correct so far. But not just letters. Gospels as well.​

The Gospels were letters too.

Quote: Doki
The letters that were finally put together are what we call the New Testament Scriptures.

Benedictus: Wrong.​

Are you saying the 27 letters that were finally put together is not called the New Testament Scriptures? I say they are.

 

[benedictus2]

Quote: Dokimas​

There were letters circulating around the churches of the 1st century written by early disciples and apostles.

Benedictus: Correct so far. But not just letters. Gospels as well.

The Gospels were letters too.

No the Gospels were not letters. The Gospels were Gospels. The Epistles are the letters. Otherwise we would have called them the Letters of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Quote: Doki
The letters that were finally put together are what we call the New Testament Scriptures.

Benedictus: Wrong.​

Are you saying the 27 letters that were finally put together is not called the New Testament Scriptures? I say they are.

I am saying that the letters were not the only ones that constitute the NT. I don’t really know why you refer to the Gospels as letters.

 

[Dokimas]

This is how Luke starts the Gospel that bears his name:

1 ¶ Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us,
3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,​

Seems like a letter to me.​

What’s in a name? It’s the point I was making, it’s the same even if we call them all letters written to or for someone or somebodies or if we call 4 of them Gospels and 23 of them letters.​

Could you please respond to the points?