L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
Maybe because those are Protestant translations?
- Status
D
distracted
Guest
the poinrt is God can create people without sin if He wants to…
he is all powerful isn’t he???
D
distracted
Guest
*speaking only for myself, i never really knew Jesus well until i became a catechized, practicing Catholic… spent time with Him in the Real Presence on a regular basis…
sorry but Protestants have a lot to learn about who Jesus really is becaue they don’t do that… *
R
rev_kevin
Guest
How can you say the Protestants don’t know Jesus. Your statement has a tone of arrorgance to it. Now if you said that there are some Protestants that don’t know Jesus, I would say, your right there are some that don’t. Now not all Catholics know Jesus, does that mean that Catholics don’t know Jesus. Now there are some Protestants that don’t spend time with HIm, that would be true, just like not all Catholics spend time with Him. But to say all Protestants don’t, seems pretty ignorant. You can’t generalize it because you don’t know that for a fact that “all” don’t. On a positive note, I’m glad that you know who Jesus really is, congradulations.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
The phrase “full of grace” is “plaras karitos” That occures in only 2 places in the NT neither one is in reference to MaryMaybe because those are Protestant translations?
- John1:14 " and the word became flesh, and dwelt among us. and behuld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,"
- Acts 6:8 “And Stephen, full of grace and power, was preforming great wonders and sings among the people.”
Remember the NT was written in Greek, not Latin. The Romane Catholics derived its doctrine from Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore the translation is wrong and the doctrine is constructed on false translation.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Right, the NT was written in Greek, but “full of grace” is an accurate rendering into English. The Greek word used is κεχαριτωμενη.
In Christ,
Andrew
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
Okay, if you won’t believe it’s in scripture, then at least consider the fact that Jesus would never come into the world through a sinful human being. What makes more sense to you? Sinful bearer of Christ or sinless bearer of Christ? Even if I wasn’t a Catholic I would still believe she is sinless - more united to our Lord than we are.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Sorry not buying it. We “all” were born with sin. The Bible says “all.” I don’t see all except Mary or anyone eles I see the word “All.” Ok then why was Jesus born instead of just being here, why was he born like the rest of us were?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
It means, Highly Favored, make accepted, make graceful. It does not mean full of grace.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
From Catholic Answers, Karl Keating:
Think about a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before ever committing an actual sin, because he isn’t mature enough to know what he is doing, what act of his brings him under their interpretation of Rom. 3:23? None, of course.
Paul’s comment to the Christians in Rome thus would seem to have one of two meanings. Despite the phrasing, it might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to Original Sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved from its stain.
It took a positive act of God to keep her from coming under its effects the way we have. We had the stain of Original Sin removed through baptism, which brings sanctifying grace to the soul (thus making the soul spiritually alive and capable of enjoying heaven) and makes the recipient a member of the Church. We might say that Mary received a very special kind of “baptism” at her conception, though, because she never contracted Original Sin, she enjoyed certain privileges we never can, such as entire avoidance of sin.
(Started at para. 9)
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAIMCON.HTM
R
rev_kevin
Guest
All this is speculation. There is no evidence that Mary was born without sin. Although what you wrote sounds nice and pretty and full of sugar, it gives no hard undeniable evidence that she was born without sin. Its purely speculation full of “it could mean” “we might say” “might means.” Give me hard undeniable evidence not guess work.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
Isn’t your “Sola Scriptura” just a speculation as well? “It isn’t in the Bible…” Yeah, well, where in the Bible does it say SS? No need to derail this thread, but the source I provided is a very good explanation for Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
If you want hard evidence, you will never find it. Atheist’s ask for hard evidence, not the people of God - we don’t need it.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Must have hit a nerve. You can’t prove it so you resort to comparing me to a Atheist insinuating that I’m not a person of God. touchy, touchy, touchy are we. I see you don’t like to be put on the spot with something you can’t explain.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Actually, I thought she raised a very good point. You reject something not specifically written in scriptures, yet you cling to sola scriptura which is not in scriptures. Please take the time to explain where the Bible teaches private interpretation or that the Bible is the sole authority…
Also, you reject an interpretation from the 4th century and accept an interpretation from a much later time. The 4th century interpretation comes with tradition, that the Bible teaches us to hold too, whether written or spoken…
Lastly, I don’t see her comparing you to atheists, but she does point out that atheists require hard evidence for every aspect of our faiths. The Bible tells us there were many things that Jesus did that are not written in the Bible, common sense tells us that we cannot read everything He did in his life in the New Testament, which can be read in a matter of hours. Why do we think everything would be written about Mary, Joseph or all the twelve Apostles…
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
I don’t have to prove anything. You obviously will not hear it, and I cannot say anything or source anything to help change your mind. I am sorry I made it sound like you were not a person of God. I know you are - you have a great knowledge of Scripture, good for you!
I assure you, I am not touchy nor am I upset I cannot make it clear for you.
The only emotion I feel right now over this discussion is sorrow - that you would believe Mary to be sinful…stooping her to the level of some unclean person. She is the most beautiful and pure human - the crown of God’s creation. I am saddened at the fact so many deny her the place she has already been given in Heaven and on Earth.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
Thank you, Prodigal Son 1, I hope my point can be made more clear to Kevin thanks to your generous help - I do tend to sound cold and condescending when I mean to be helpful but firm. God Bless you and yours
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Did I say I cling to the sola scripture. I don’t recall ever saying that. That is your assumption not my words.
Never said the Bible was the sole authority. Once again you are making assumptions on what I never said.
Where did I say that I was giving my privite interpretation of the Bible. I have researched and went to school. Besides everything is ones personal interpretation. See everything has to be interprated eather by one person or a group of people even the Bible was interprated by someone.
So its not ok for someone to interprate but it was ok in the 4th century for someone to because of tradition.
Read between the lines about the Atheists. Sure everything wasn’t written down so how do you come up with this about Mary. It wasn’t written down so who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong. Remember it wasn’t written down so I guess its has to do with someones interpretation.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The tradition, I’m speaking of, was and is oral tradition. The New Testament has several examples of things known, taught and learned through oral tradition. The canon of the New Testament had not been defined until near the 4th century, yet Christianity and the Church grew through oral tradition. Christ commissioned a Church, He did not commission things be written down, nor did He write anything Himself. That’s not to say Catholics don’t believe the Bible isn’t the inspired word of God, we do believe it is and that inspired word of God tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Now, you’ve said that you’ve never mentioned sola scriptura or private interpretation, yet you have not denied those beliefs. Maybe now a direct question of what you believe about those things can bring about a direct response? If you don’t believe in private interpretation, whose interpretation do you accept and if the Bible is not the sole authority, in your opinion, please share with us who or what other authorities you believe in.
Just so you know, I see all Christians as ‘one’, through our profession of Christ being Lord and saviour. Scriptures, Mark 9:39 - 40, give a perfect example as taught by Christ himself. It just concerns me to see someone say Catholic Christians are wrong, as if we are some how not a part of the body of Christ because we’re Catholic. That is dissension, in my humble opinion and we know that Paul told us to take note of those who create dissension and difficulties in opposition to doctrines taught. Those doctrines are traditions that were taught and written about by Paul. He told us to hold to those traditions taught, whether by word or written.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Oral tradition, well have you ever sat in a room with 10 or more people in a circle and say a phrase to one then they say what they heard to the other and so on and so on, when it gets back to you its nothing close to what you said in the first place. So I don’t put my trust in oral tradition because after being told again and again things get twisted and come out different than what it was originally meant to be.
I don’t believe I said the Bible wasn’t the sole authority. I said I didn’t say that. Now you are interpretating what you think I meant.
Once again I said I didn’t say that about personal interpretation. You are using you own interpretation in what I said.
Does one have to deny or accept it inorder to say I never mentioned it.
I believe in the authority of Jesus Christ, not a church that says they are the authority.
It concerns you to hear the the Catholic church is wrong. Well that is what we are told all the time here that we are wrong, so how do you think we feel.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
There were more than 10 people in a room that Christ commissioned to be His Church. A Church He promised to be with until the consummation of the world. I trust in Christ to have built a Church that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against. Christ taught to observe and do whatsoever those who sat upon the chair of Moses said, but according to their works, do not do. This teaches us the power of God to protect His truth in His house, the Church, even through less than perfect men. (By the way, how did all those people know what the chair of Moses was? It’s not written about anywhere in the Bible? They learned about the chair of Moses through the oral tradition.)
You didn’t say the Bible was the sole authority and you didn’t say it wasn’t the sole authority. That’s why I asked you to share your beliefs. Now, who’s getting touchy about something they can’t exactly explain? You refuse to answer my question directly, referencing private interpretation or sola scriptura, so you leave me no choice but to try and read between the lines and interpret what you believe.
The reason these beliefs were brought up to you, is because not everything Catholics believe is specifically written down, just as everything you believe is not written down. It’s called faith. Even though we have differences in our doctrines, traditions and teachings, we both believe Christ was the only begotten Son of God who came down from heaven, suffered, died and was buried for our salvation. We believe he arose again on the third day and ascended into heaven. We believe he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end.
You’ve come to a Catholic forum, where you’ve told Catholics they are wrong and it seems to be borderline arrogantly. What do you expect us to do, say oh yes everything you are teaching us is right, even though scriptures tells us to hold the traditions we have learned whether by word or epistle? Those traditions have been passed down since the time of Christ. There were not multi-denominational Churches since the beginning. For centuries, there was only one Church, taught not only by Catholic history, but secular history as well. Protestantism began in the 1500s, by men who rejected Church interpretations passed down through oral tradition for their own interpretation. Now, there are many, many denonminations. Even a ‘non-denomination’ is another denomination with it’s own doctrines, teachings and beliefs, based on someone’s interpretation far removed the era the Church was commissioned. Did Christ fail to be with His truth for 1500 years, or more depending on which Church one belongs too? Many Churches, even non-denominational Churches, began in the 1900s. Did Christ skip many generations of people with His truth?
Catholics have faith in God and God’s ability to keep His truth safe for ALL, all people of all generations and all time, as scriptures tells us it was for.
- Status