Question About Mary ??

[LJN21]

“Bible Alone” IS enough to get you into Heaven. Is it not? (explain your answer)

Can oral tradition be proven true? Some sources MAY be found for some, but not all. Therefore, HOW can you know if some “traditions” are true or not?

The “early church” did not include teachings about the assumption of Mary. Why not? It didn’t exist then. It was made up later.

Ya know, you still haven’t ever answered how you know the bible is in fact inspired.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey-
I realize that you do not and probably will not accept the Bible as an inspired book.
However, would you at least get a copy and read Luke and Acts as purely historical documents so that you can contribute more accurately to our discussions?
Thanks. :tiphat:

Hi
I have read the whole OTBible&NTBible from cover to cover both the CatholicVersions and the ProtestantVersons, the portions you have mentioned form a very small part of that.
I do believe that JesusYeshuaIssa received Word from GodAllahYHWH so it was revealed to him from exterior. Those who receive Word of Revelation from GodAllahYHWH because they have been acknowledged by Him as His messengers, they also get inspiration. I don’t deny that Jesus might have and must have received inspiration ( thought generated within him) as he had received revelation ( word generated in the exterior, not within the mind of the reciepient). The scribe writers never received any revelation, so in my opinion they could not be inspired). They wrote an account of Jesus’ life, which must not be accepted true without caution on merit.
I respect you faith, however, this is what I belive is reasonable.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

 

[kujo313]

Ya know, you still haven’t ever answered how you know the bible is in fact inspired.

Inspired by God 2 Tim 3:16
Very Words of God 2 Sam 23:2; Jeremiah 1:9
It is inerrant Deut 4:2; 2 Peter 1:21
It’s the only infallible rule of faith and practice Ps 111:7-8; 119:89
It is the Word of God 1 Thes 2:13
its prophecies will all be fulfilled and its words are forever
Matt 5:18; 24:35
Its single unifying theme is that man might have eternal life through believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God (His person and the finished work on Calvary) John 20:31

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[kujo313]

If everything that we need to know as Christians is in the Bible, then where in the Bible does it give us the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible?

If the “Bible alone IS enough to get you into Heaven” were true, then you just condemned millions of Christians who believed by HEARING the Word of God preached to them, since they were unable to read the Bible themselves. Until quite recently, like in the last 150 years or so, most people in the world were illiterate. In many places, people still are illiterate. Are they damned because they can’t read?

Last time I checked, the Bible said that the grace of God, which gives us faith to believe and obey Jesus, is what gets us into Heaven. The Bible makes no claim to be in and of itself the ticket to Heaven.

Don’t twist it around. If you’re going to read the Bible to somebody who’s illerate, you’d BETTER not add anything to it. (Example: Mary. What’s in the Bible about her is all we need to know.)
There’s also the Bible on CD and cassette and they’re also for people who can’t see that well, too.

People are only damned if they do not accept the testimony of the Holy Spirit: Jesus Christ. Unless you are born again, you shall not see Heaven.

 

[kujo313]

You’re right.

This is done in the New Testament which says, “All generations shall call me blessed.”

The OT does not have that. You were correct there.

“Blessed”. The same word Jesus used in Matthew 5 and in Luke 6. If Mary was to receive a higher “blessing”, Jesus wouldn’t have used the same word in Matthew 5 and Luke 6.
Just as “blessed” as Mary are those who are mentioned in Mattnew 5 and Luke 6.

You’re right. Mary is “blessed”. She’s just as blessed as many other people.

 

[kujo313]

kujo313;2312867:

If we call her Immaculately Conceived it’s because we revere HIM so much that we don’t believe He would choose (make actually - he MADE her, remember) an imperfect or sinful vessel through which to come into the world. If you could create your own mother would you make her imperfect?

If we believe she has any power at all, it’s because we believe in HIS love and HIS promise to give His faithful servants charge over ‘many things’.

And why should I quote the Bible left right and centre? I’m not a sola scripturist. You’re the one standing on the one wobbly leg. I’ve got three legs holding me up - scripture, Apostolic tradition and the teaching authority passed on to the Church (not ChurchES, not any darn sod who reads the Bible 2000 years after it was written) so I’ll never fall.

Find me a verse that says ‘read and believe what is written in the scriptures and that will be all you will ever need to know’. It doesn’t. It says they’re USEFUL, not that they’re good enough on their own.

Mary was sinful and imperfect. OT tradition here. No lambs’ mothers was mentioned, just the sacrificial lamb. Also, what more of a miracle it is that a perfect Messiah, the ONLY one sinless, was born of a sinful woman. Don’t water down the Gospel.
Jesus gave “his faithful servants charge” is true. There was others besides Mary. They got just the same.
Scripture is a solid “leg” with a firm foundation (Christ). Your other two legs are questionable. Many of your “Apostolic traditions” don’t seem to match Scripture or any of the letters within Scripture. Thirdly, since only Jesus was perfect (all have sinned), then the teaching authority is useless unless it’s teaching Scripture, which is a “solid leg with a firm foundation.”

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Don’t twist it around. If you’re going to read the Bible to somebody who’s illerate, you’d BETTER not add anything to it. (Example: Mary. What’s in the Bible about her is all we need to know.)
There’s also the Bible on CD and cassette and they’re also for people who can’t see that well, too.

And you’d BETTER not take anything away from it.

People are only damned if they do not accept the testimony of the Holy Spirit: Jesus Christ. Unless you are born again, you shall not see Heaven.

And how do you define being “born again”? What do I need to do to be “born again” according to your interpretation? Say a prayer asking Jesus into my heart? If that’s the case, I’ve done that. I came to know Jesus at the age of 19 in an independent, fundamental Baptist church. I’m not some poorly catechised Cafeteria Catholic who just goes through the motions every Sunday without knowing or caring why. I thank God for my Baptist background that gave me a love for the written Word and encouraged me to read Scripture. **It was the words of Christ in the Gospels that made me Catholic. **

Didn’t Jesus also say, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” ?

 

[Booklover]

LilyM;2312915:

Mary was sinful and imperfect. OT tradition here. No lambs’ mothers was mentioned, just the sacrificial lamb. Also, what more of a miracle it is that a perfect Messiah, the ONLY one sinless, was born of a sinful woman. Don’t water down the Gospel.
Jesus gave “his faithful servants charge” is true. There was others besides Mary. They got just the same.
Scripture is a solid “leg” with a firm foundation (Christ). Your other two legs are questionable. Many of your “Apostolic traditions” don’t seem to match Scripture or any of the letters within Scripture. Thirdly, since only Jesus was perfect (all have sinned), then the teaching authority is useless unless it’s teaching Scripture, which is a “solid leg with a firm foundation.”

How can you call yourself a “Christian” and actually believe that God would allow his Son to be born of a sinner who was not worthy of being his mother? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Inspired by God 2 Tim 3:16
Very Words of God 2 Sam 23:2; Jeremiah 1:9
It is inerrant Deut 4:2; 2 Peter 1:21
It’s the only infallible rule of faith and practice Ps 111:7-8; 119:89
It is the Word of God 1 Thes 2:13
its prophecies will all be fulfilled and its words are forever
Matt 5:18; 24:35
Its single unifying theme is that man might have eternal life through believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God (His person and the finished work on Calvary) John 20:31

You didn’t answer my question.

No, no…this just speaks to the nature of the Bible…but it does not address how you know with certainty that Philemon and Jude are inspired while the Gospel of Thomas or the Didache are not.

We need to know how you know with certainty that these 27 - no more and no less - are all that can be called inspired.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Blessed”. The same word Jesus used in Matthew 5 and in Luke 6. If Mary was to receive a higher “blessing”, Jesus wouldn’t have used the same word in Matthew 5 and Luke 6.
Just as “blessed” as Mary are those who are mentioned in Mattnew 5 and Luke 6.

You’re right. Mary is “blessed”. She’s just as blessed as many other people.

Blessed is fine. That is not the issue.

The issue is why ALL GENERATIONS will call her blessed.

A few years from now, no one will remember that you and I ever passed this way…yet, as you say we are blessed.

But Mary will be called “blessed” forever.

Why, Kujo?

 

[cazayoux]

I think the point is that if Mary’s was planning a normal marriage she would not have said, “how can this be” because she would have assumed that the anticipated intercourse would be what brought forth the son.

‘normal’ is relative.
Not all Jewish communities practiced the same ‘normality’.
The Aseen (spelling?) Jewish community was very devout and known for abstinent marriages and were only sustained by other Jews joining their community.
The Dead Sea scrolls were found in an area where this community lived.
Point is that it is not unheard of for a married Jewish couple to abstain from sex.

michel

 

[kujo313]

Blessed is fine. That is not the issue.

The issue is why ALL GENERATIONS will call her blessed.

A few years from now, no one will remember that you and I ever passed this way…yet, as you say we are blessed.

But Mary will be called “blessed” forever.

Why, Kujo?

Because it is written. duh.
We can read about other historical figures, too. Moses, King David, George Washington, Martin Luther King.

All because somebody wrote it down for later generations to read.

True, ALL GENERATIONS shall call her blessed, but ALL GENERATIONS can be blessed, too!

Even you.

 

[cazayoux]

Salvation. Through Christ, we are “justified” or “just-if-I’d never sinned”.

What does it matter, therefore, if Mary remained a virgin or not? Wether Jesus was an “only child” or if he was one of 10 kids, He was STILL the first-born, the child parents dedicated to God.

It has no effect to our Salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not.
What would probably matter is if Mary was in submission to her husband.

So your point might be that if Catholics didn’t teach it, protestants wouldn’t spend any time refuting it today with “The bible doesn’t explicitely state it”.

Actually, the bible doesn’t explicitely state it either way.

It’s a fairly new poke at Catholicism.
Even Luther believed it to be true based on what he considered valid Tradition.

The argument on one side uses scripture to say
“see, it’s possible that she had other children”
and on the other side
“see, it’s possible that she didn’t have other children.”

So where do we stand?

Protestants don’t believe the Tradition that Catholics and Luther believed.
Protestants dismiss the writings of those first Christians because they were not apostles.
Were all of the writers for the new testament apostles?
Or was at least one of them taught orally by the apostles or followers of the apostles.

It is valid to consider the writings of those first Christians.
The Catholic Church considers them.
Even Luther considered them.

Why not protestants of today?

I still assume that if the Catholic Church didn’t teach it, protestants would not spend any time with it at all.

michel

 

[Allweather]

I still assume that if the Catholic Church didn’t teach it, protestants would not spend any time with it at all.

michel

Very true. Protestants, and their cousins in the JW, Mormon, Moonie cults (the list is too long to list here), attack all the central teachings of Christianity. This is not by accident. Now, you take ol’ Kujo here. Even his username speaks of something less than holy. A rabid dog who wreaks terror. Is it an accident that this Christian man assumes such a username? I doubt it. Likewise, it is no accident that the religions he attaches himself to make a career out of attacking the Christian faith, while trying to present themselves as Christian.

 

[paarsurrey]

“Bible Alone” IS enough to get you into Heaven. Is it not? (explain your answer)

Can oral tradition be proven true? Some sources MAY be found for some, but not all. Therefore, HOW can you know if some “traditions” are true or not?

The “early church” did not include teachings about the assumption of Mary. Why not? It didn’t exist then. It was made up later.

Hi
I would answer like this.
1.Bible is the primary source of Christian/Jewish teachings, nothing else could add or minus from it, or make an alternative to it.
2.Oral tradition if thought to be fit to replace Bible teachings, then logically NTBible is an incomplete Book.
3.The “early church” did not include teachings about the assumption of Mary. Why not? It didn’t exist then. It was made up later.
I agree with you; it also reflects on the concept of ChristianInspiration.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

 

[jmcrae]

Show me one thing in the Nicene Creed that is not in scripture or taught in scripture

My point is that it is the other way around - it got into Scripture because it was already in the Nicene Creed.

 

[LJN21]

Inspired by God 2 Tim 3:16
Very Words of God 2 Sam 23:2; Jeremiah 1:9
It is inerrant Deut 4:2; 2 Peter 1:21
It’s the only infallible rule of faith and practice Ps 111:7-8; 119:89
It is the Word of God 1 Thes 2:13
its prophecies will all be fulfilled and its words are forever
Matt 5:18; 24:35
Its single unifying theme is that man might have eternal life through believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God (His person and the finished work on Calvary) John 20:31

You didn’t answer my question.

I’m getting there.

So you believe the bible is inspired because it says it is? How do we know all the books of the bible its self are inspired?

What about the Book of Mormon, or Koran? These books claim to be inspired.

 

[Allweather]

I would answer like this.
1.Bible is the primary source of Christian/Jewish teachings, nothing else could add or minus from it, or make an alternative to it.

True, but the NT didn’t exist at the time of Jesus, and didn’t begin to be put down into writing until around 20 years after the ascension. In the early years, it was all oral Tradition.

2.Oral tradition if thought to be fit to replace Bible teachings, then logically NTBible is an incomplete Book.

 

[paarsurrey]

My point is that it is the other way around - it got into Scripture because it was already in the Nicene Creed.

Hi
I agree with you.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

 

[Harland]

Why do people reject the writings of people who knew the Apostles and were taught by them or knew people who knew people who knew the Apostles personally but hang on every word from people that are living 2000 years after the fact?

I have more faith in the writings of someone who knew and wrote about George Washington than someone writing about him today but rejects the writings of the people who knew him.