Question for protestants from a protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter april_hosen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
sonseeker:
Read the thread. I’m following what has been thrown at me.
Click to expand...
Nothing was thrown at you. Also, April has not objected to Catholic rebuttals. She has asked me some questions which I have answered on this thread so I understand that to mean I am welcome.
 
40.png
Eden:
Nothing was thrown at you. Also, April has not objected to Catholic rebuttals. She has asked me some questions which I have answered on this thread so I understand that to mean I am welcome.
Click to expand...
Sorry, thrown is a guy thing. Never said you weren’t welcome.
 
Sorry, thrown is a guy thing. - O.K. Understood.

Never said you weren’t welcome. - I was responding to your post saying "Actually it is Questions for protestants from a protestant".
After I responded, I realized that you thought I meant* this* whole *post *above was about the Real Presence. I just meant the link to the site right above my sentence was all about the Real Presence.

I’ve started a new thread dedicated soley to the Real Presence.
 
sonseeker said:
(continued from post #172)

If this is indeed what Mr. O’Brien said, then you should avoid reading him anymore. The goal of understanding the Scriptures is not what a figure of speech or a word means TODAY. The meaning that must be obtained is what it meant ***WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN ***and within the context of the culture of the writer(s).

Bill
Click to expand...

I think what he is impling that the Jews viewed it that way when Jesus was around. Look how it says “as in Arab cultures of TODAY.” That seems to imply to me like he meant it as a long time ago for the Jews. Notice how he also says “meant to inflict.” I can see how the gramatical structure could be a bit wonky, though.
 
Eden said:
"Actually it is Questions for protestants from a protestant".
After I responded, I realized that you thought I meant* this* whole *post *above was about the Real Presence. I just meant the link to the site right above my sentence was all about the Real Presence.
Click to expand...

My apologies.

I was reading at lightning speed, and I missed that.

No hard feelings?

Bill
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
I think what he is impling that the Jews viewed it that way when Jesus was around. Look how it says “as in Arab cultures of TODAY.” That seems to imply to me like he meant it as a long time ago for the Jews. Notice how he also says “meant to inflict.” I can see how the gramatical structure could be a bit wonky, though.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. His argument, however, is one that I have never heard before. I’ll look into it this week and see what I can find.

Bill
 
" No hard feelings?"

Bah I will hold my grudges till the end of time.

Actually I did do a quick google on the Internet to see if this was a fact, and I did find a few sites referencing it, so it does seem legit to me.
 
new man:
The Pope is not infallible. he “exercises infallibility”. The difference is important and it is this among other things which posits infallibility squarely in the biblical right and duty to bind and loose.
Click to expand...
i don’t want to hijack the thread, but doesn’t the pope have to say something to declare a statement infallable? i heard something about it before. i’m not catholic yet, so bear with me. :confused:
 
This is true. It is must be on matters of Faith and Morals, and must be made ex cathedra; from the Chair of Saint Peter. That is, as an “official” infallibile statement. The Pope cannot “accidently” make an infallible statement. Also, when the Pope is in league with the Bishops in a council, it is infallible (not 100% sure on this, but there is some sort of Pope/bishop meeting rule to infallibility).
 
40.png
speedy5:
i don’t want to hijack the thread, but doesn’t the pope have to say something to declare a statement infallable? i heard something about it before. i’m not catholic yet, so bear with me. :confused:
Click to expand...
Here is everything you ever wanted to know about infallibility and more. 😃

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

A little more than half way down the page you will find “Papal Infallibility”.
 
thanks. i just got confused. i knew it had something to do with the chair of peter.
 
40.png
Eden:
You’re fine, April. We all understand that you are learning what we believe and that it’s all new to you. You ask* really* great questions. Praying to Mary is simply asking her to intercede for us with her Son. She always points the way to her Him. God the Father chose to bring his Son to us through the Virgin Mary. Why then, if we feel so inclined at the time, may we not go through Mary to get to His Son? You may say, “But why not go to Christ directly?” Well, sometimes I feel so humbled and unworthy of speaking directly to Him so I ask Mary, “Will you please present this to your Son?” No human being ever knew Jesus Christ the way the Virgin Mary did. She raised him and was His mother for 33 years. She watched Him die on the cross. Jesus loved His mother very much and He would love for you to love her too. As a Catholic we are not *required *to ask Mary for her intercession. But in His agony on the cross, He gave His mother to both the disciple John as well as to all of us when He said, “Woman, behold your Son” and to John, “Behold your mother.” He has offerred His mother to you and to all of us. But, you are not required to accept the offer for your salvation. I know that Protestants do not believe in apparitions, but the Virgin Mary has appeared to millions. As Christ will not return again until the Second Coming, He uses His mother to broach the divide between Heaven and Earth - to remind us to think of Him. (If you want to see pictures of an apparition in which she appeared to millions - Muslims, Protestants, atheists, Catholics all saw her - I can post them here.) Anyway, if she is good enough for Him to send as a messenger, she’s good enough for me.

(By the way, no one refers to the Pope as “Heavenly Father”.)
Click to expand...
Thank you Eden,
I love it when you post because you always have such great answers taht are understandable! 🙂 So thank you once again. Okay now here’s my question!
At the beginning of this post you said, " Praying to Mary is simply asking her to intercede for us with her Son." I understand feeling humbled when it comes to Jesus, but isnt interceding Jesus’ job? God sent His Son down to earth to die on the cross so He could be the bridge/intercede between us and God.
Also, likeI said before I dont see how Mary interceding is Bibical. I mean it makes a lot of sense but I dont see the Bibical reference.
 
40.png
RyanL:
Right! The evidence is there, but it’s still not *explicit *(it never says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in one divine nature, comprising three Godheads while maintaining only one God). With all of the OT references, keep in mind that the Jews (then *and *now) don’t believe in the Trinity - they only believe in God the Father (Deu 6:4). So the OT is vague, as God had not revealed Himself fully yet. With the NT references you listed, it’s still a little vague. This “vagueness” led Arius into heresy in the 4th century (catholic.com/library/great_heresies.asp ), and resulted in the Nicene Creed (mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html ). This particularly dastardly heresy threatened to tear the early Church apart (thankfully, the promise of Christ wouldn’t let the “gates of Hell” overcome it!). Arius ammassed a number of followers, however, and did it using scripture. As for the result, you’ve probably said the Nicene Creed at your church (most christian churches have) and Arianism has been pretty thoroughly put down.
If you still don’t believe it’s vague, talk to a Jehova’s Witness. This “bible alone” church also believes that Christ was not God, and they use the bible to prove their point (…well…they use their translation, but you get the picture).
If you would like to discuss specifics of a given topic and how biblical it really is (and again, I assure you our dogmas and doctrines are allbiblical) start a thread in the apologetics forum. I’d be more than happy to walk you through any of our beliefs!
RyanL
Click to expand...
Yes,
I see where you are going, but I still dont see how the Trinty in the Bible could be vague. I think it is implicitly implied enough times in the Bible for it to be considered explicit. maybe I’m just being stubborn with this,but its pretty crystal clear to me that the Trinity is in the Bible.
Sorry if it seems I’m coming off harsh in any way.Its always sounds a lot better in person. 😉

Ps- I have talked to Jehova’s Witnesses, not something I wannado again. (Bad experience!)
 
CatherineofA said:
“Your observation tells me more about you than about the ‘people’ you have observed”

Your point is?

“I’ll take the original 2,000 years strong and growing.”

Well, there seems to be some debate out as not all historians see early Christianity as equal to early Catholicism. See John A. McGuckin for one. Internationally renowned historian and consultant on early church history. Early Christianity would not be debatable if it were a sure thing like who authored the Declaration of Independence.

“Jesus was not in a body tainted by sin for nine months.”

He was because he spent the next few decades outside of her body mingling in a sinful world. Being in Mary’s body was just geography. Jesus was without sin where ever he was.
Click to expand...

Hi Catherine!
I understand you are trying to defend Protestants. But I suggest simmering down there. Its one thing if you trying to make a point to better that persons understanding. But if your intention of making that point is to hurt someone else in any way, thats were we fall in to sin. I’m no example but, choosing your words carefully is a good idea.
 
40.png
sonseeker:
22 But the Scripture has shut up EVERYONE under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Click to expand...
Hey Bill,
What version of the Bible are you reading out of? I know your really passionate about this but that was a little uncalled for.
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
You cannot compare pre-Christ people of God and dead infants with a person who is in a Christ centered era. The first group is not in the era of a savior and the second group does not have the ability to make a conscience decision about their faith. Mary llived in the era of Christ and she was able to make a conscience decision. Her body was just geography. Christ could live in her sinful body just as he lived ina sinful world in sinful homes everyday.
Click to expand...
Hello April! Good luck on your journey…it is at least exciting, isn’t it!

I wanted to make a point with Catherine real quickly…Hi Catherine! Yes…Jesus is a man born that the way most men are, but he is also Devine…God. A Real important fact, because before God was Born of Mary, the only way that he had shown himself was through the profits; Moses, Abraham, Holy ground, take off your sandles, burning bushes, no one but the rightous, hair turning white…and on and on. God resided within Mary as well, Mary’s womb was the holy place that God choose to dwell, and does that not make her full of grace, and is that not the proof? I mean if God can make a Mountain Holy, could he not a woman?
 
Thinking about the purity of Mary and whether she remained sinless or not, these words just wouldn’t leave my head.

Mk2:21 No man seweth a piece of raw cloth to an old garment: otherwise the new piecing taketh away from the old, and there is made a greater rent.
22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: otherwise the wine will burst the bottles, and both the wine will be spilled and the bottles will be lost. But new wine must be put into new bottles.​

Thinking about wine into bottles, I was thinking could Jesus being sinless really enter into a sinner, Body Soul and Devinity ? and since Jesus’s Father was sinless, then His Mother had to be also.

And since I’ve heard Jesus referred to as the new Adam, and he was sinless, and Mary as the new Eve, sinless also, then Mary had to be sinless.

So if the original Eve was without sin, then the new Eve has to be without sin also.
Ok just me ranting away in cyber-space ! http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/5.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top