Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[nbtb1348]

Catholics need not engage in eisegesis. You see, these passages were written by Catholics, for Catholics. There is no dichotomy between their contents and the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

Just because you cannot “see” something, that does not make it a fable and a myth. Spiritual things can only be discerned by spiritual sight.

If this is the cse for you, then I recommend that you stay off threads like this one. It is dangerous for someone so weak in faith to be exposed to such discussion.

Jesus came to deliver us from sin, and He desires that we all refrain from sin, and live in purity. This is not a distraction from Him, but the highest honoring of Him.

You are correct that it is not “Roman”, but in fact, the Scripture was penned, preserved, protected, promulgated and proclaimed by Catholics, and that is where the authority comes from. However, this authority is from Jesus, not men. It was the HS, moving in men who inspired the Scripture, and guided the development of the Canon.

Again, the problem as I see it is that there is an absence of Scriptural teaching that Mary was without sin. Would it help your case if Scripture said she was a woman after God’s own heart?

 

[nbtb1348]

Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam and Eve by his death on the cross. But original sin is not a personal transgression of ours as individual human beings. It’s a state we’ve contracted in our humanity. By the redemptive merits of Christ’s sacrifice, we can receive the grace of forgiveness of our own personal sins provided we are contrite and repent. Redemption and forgiveness go hand in hand in God’s plan of salvation. There is no redemption for people who die in a state of mortal sin (a violation of the Ten Commandments) by refusing to repent. Thus Mary was saved through the merits of Christ’s death on the cross by being preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception, having been implicated in the universal sin of Adam and Eve in her humanity. But she was in no need of having been forgiven of any personal sins that she would have had to commit in her life.

The manner in which Mary’s salvation took course in her life radically differs from that of the human race. Unlike the rest of us, Mary was conceived in a state of sanctifying grace, which is necessary for our salvation. As a result, her human nature was not affected by the inclination to sin (concupiscence). And Luke assures us in the words of the angel Gabriel that Mary, ‘Kecharitomene’, never fell from God’s grace by committing a personal sin. Mary’s soul proclaimed the greatness of the Lord throughout her entire life. The Church Fathers perceived this when they referred to Mary as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

“Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of Justice…through you [the Divine Maternity] every faithful soul achieves salvation.”
*Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 at Ephesus (A.D. 431) *

PAX :tiphat:

I’m sorry, but just because you can quote Greek (’‘Kecharitomene’") doesn’t mean you have any real understanding of what was meant when when Gabriel greeted her. All of the talk about Mary and how her life was different is completely outside both the teaching of Scripture and the spirit of it. And frankly it doesn’t, in a sense, even matter if she was sinless, in terms of benefit to anyone. It is simply part of an obsession that occurs in many false religions. And, if you want to actually look at pertinent Scripture, let’s just look at what Jesus said when someone actually tried to venerate Mary in His presence:

"While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” --Luke 11:27-29

My, how Scripture can screw up some good dogma!

 

[nbtb1348]

Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam and Eve by his death on the cross. But original sin is not a personal transgression of ours as individual human beings. It’s a state we’ve contracted in our humanity. By the redemptive merits of Christ’s sacrifice, we can receive the grace of forgiveness of our own personal sins provided we are contrite and repent. Redemption and forgiveness go hand in hand in God’s plan of salvation. There is no redemption for people who die in a state of mortal sin (a violation of the Ten Commandments) by refusing to repent. Thus Mary was saved through the merits of Christ’s death on the cross by being preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception, having been implicated in the universal sin of Adam and Eve in her humanity. But she was in no need of having been forgiven of any personal sins that she would have had to commit in her life.

The manner in which Mary’s salvation took course in her life radically differs from that of the human race. Unlike the rest of us, Mary was conceived in a state of sanctifying grace, which is necessary for our salvation. As a result, her human nature was not affected by the inclination to sin (concupiscence). And Luke assures us in the words of the angel Gabriel that Mary, ‘Kecharitomene’, never fell from God’s grace by committing a personal sin. Mary’s soul proclaimed the greatness of the Lord throughout her entire life. The Church Fathers perceived this when they referred to Mary as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

“Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of Justice…through you [the Divine Maternity] every faithful soul achieves salvation.”
*Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 at Ephesus (A.D. 431) *

PAX :tiphat:

I know its not what this thread is about, but what Scripture is it that says that mortal sins are defined as violations of the ten commandments?

 

[guanophore]

Again, the problem as I see it is that there is an absence of Scriptural teaching that Mary was without sin. Would it help your case if Scripture said she was a woman after God’s own heart?

No, I already know that she was such a woman, otherwise the angel would not have told her she found favor with God. However, since my doctrines are not dependent upon the Scripture, it is not a problem for me that there is no verse of scripture that says “Mary, you are without any stain of sin, original or personal”. Catholics receive their doctrines from Christ, through the Apostles.

I’m sorry, but just because you can quote Greek (’‘Kecharitomene’") doesn’t mean you have any real understanding of what was meant when when Gabriel greeted her.

You are right. We have this understanding because we have received the teaching of the Apostles. The Gk is just a reflection of what they believed and taught.

All of the talk about Mary and how her life was different is completely outside both the teaching of Scripture and the spirit of it.

Well…we read it differently.

And frankly it doesn't, in a sense, even matter if she was sinless, in terms of benefit to anyone.  It is simply part of an obsession that occurs in many false religions.

We disagree about the importance, but I do agree with you that the objection to Marian doctrines really does seem to be an obsession among “bible Christians”.

And, if you want to actually look at pertinent Scripture, let’s just look at what Jesus said when someone actually tried to venerate Mary in His presence:

"While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” --Luke 11:27-29

My, how Scripture can screw up some good dogma!

Actually, the words mean “but even more so”. How do we know that this is a more correct understanding? Because scripture has already told us that she is blessed because she was chosen to be his mother, so that is a given. Even MORE SO, is she blessed because she heard the words of God, and obeyed therm. Twice blessed! See, I told you we read it differently.

 

[elvisman]

I know its not what this thread is about, but what Scripture is it that says that mortal sins are defined as violations of the ten commandments?

Do you know what mortal sin is?
**You do realize that all sins are based on violations of the 10 Commandments, don’t you? **

 

[Canto]

Mary said it herself.?

Mary said “I’m a sinner?” Which verse(s) ??? And yes Mary did need a saviour (magnificat) and her Saviour saved her from sin.

I for one.?

And by what authority?

2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

1 Timothy 3:15 …the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

take away the foundation and…

Is that what I said? No. One of God’s purposes for sending Jesus was to save believers from their sin…he does not distinguish male from female.

If God can save someone, why not Mary? Never said he distinguished between genders was refering to Mary so said woman - sorry for the confusion.

I agree, but you must have sin in order to remove sin. If you have no sin, then you do not need a Savior…is that complicated?

Can’t God remove sin before you get it like a doctor giving you a vaccine to prevent you from getting a disease?

 

[NonCatholic]

I’m sorry, but just because you can quote Greek (’‘Kecharitomene’") doesn’t mean you have any real understanding of what was meant when when Gabriel greeted her. All of the talk about Mary and how her life was different is completely outside both the teaching of Scripture and the spirit of it. And frankly it doesn’t, in a sense, even matter if she was sinless, in terms of benefit to anyone. It is simply part of an obsession that occurs in many false religions. And, if you want to actually look at pertinent Scripture, let’s just look at what Jesus said when someone actually tried to venerate Mary in His presence:

"While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” --Luke 11:27-29

My, how Scripture can screw up some good dogma!

Excellent point! However; I believe you will come across more credible if you leave out the last sentence…I know it is difficult, but stick to the facts without getting in digs and when you do, then apologize. Second, A good way is to read, then say to yourself, do I need to write this or will it distract and put people on the offensive against me. I’m not telling you what to do, but just some practical advise you did not ask for.

God bless you with His joy and peace this day!

 

[NonCatholic]

Mary said “I’m a sinner?” Which verse(s) ??? And yes Mary did need a saviour (magnificat) and her Saviour saved her from sin.

Then you agree, she was a sinner; you are progressing toward the truth of Scripture.

And by what authority?

2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

1 Timothy 3:15 …the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

take away the foundation and…

When quoting Sripture, please please please put it in the proper context; otherwise you do the very thing you accuse others.
2Peter - The point is that the Holy Spirit is the only legitimate interpreter of Scripture…not me and not the Roman Catholic Church or any other.

1 Tim the “house of God” I believe is the first time a “building or meeting place” is referred to in Scripture…“Church” is the assembly of believers" the pillar and foundation is the preaching and teaching of God’s word - chosen by God…no reference to a denomination such as Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist etc

If there is no “foundation”, the the Word of God or Jesus, then when the storm of judgment comes, the house will fall.

If God can save someone, why not Mary?

God did save the Mary of the Bible, she recognized and declared God as her Savior, then lived a life of obedience.

 

[rinnie]

She was with sin because, like all of us, we are human and not God. Anyone who claims Mary of the Bible was without sin, then they make God and Mary of the Bible liar’s. 1John …or you make Mary a goddess. Mary said herself she was a sinner, not directly, but it is implicit in her statement when she said my Lord and my SAVIOR. A sinless person does not need a Savior because the very nature of needing Jesus is because of our sin. You can slice and dice Mary all you want, but the Biblical account will stand for eternity.

Where did the RCC ever say Mary did not need a savior. We said everyone needs a Savior including Mary. We said that Mary was saved From God at the Moment of her conception.

Where did the RCC ever say that Jesus Christ needed a Savior. Jesus Christ is our Savior. The Church teaches that Mary did indeed become saved at conception by God, and gave birth to the Savior. Our Lord Jesus Christ. Please do not teach the RCC if you do not understand it.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m sorry, but just because you can quote Greek (’‘Kecharitomene’") doesn’t mean you have any real understanding of what was meant when when Gabriel greeted her.

The Church Fathers clearly understood what ‘Kecharitomene’ means. The angel Gabriel refrained from addressing Mary by her given name after he hailed her in recognition of her royalty. He called our Queen Mother “the one who has been perfected in grace”. Having been made perfect by the grace of God by virtue of her Divine Maternity, Mary couldn’t have had a human nature wounded by an inclination to sin. The angel assures Mary not to be afraid for she has “found favour with God.” He is alluding to the fact that Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin when God fashioned her soul and infused it with his sanctifying grace. Eve forfeited God’s favour and his friendship the moment she partook of the forbidden fruit and fell from divine grace. As a result, her firstborn son was an offspring of the serpent: Cain. :yup:

All of the talk about Mary and how her life was different is completely outside both the teaching of Scripture and the spirit of it.

The first Christians in the church at Jerusalem would beg to disagree with you. They regarded Mary as a highly exceptional human being. She was acknowledged as the “most blessed among women” having been chosen by God to bear his Only-begotten Son. And they considered Jesus equally blessed by having been given such a pure and chaste mother by the grace of his heavenly Father (Lk 1: 42). Mary was perceived as a type of pure and undefiled ark of the Covenant by the time Luke wrote his gospel. Understandably so considering the first Christian converts were Jews who saw a continuation and fulfillment of the old Covenant in their new found faith. The angel Gabriel uses the word “overshadow” when describing how the conception of Jesus will occur (Lk 1: 35). Translated from the Greek (episkiasei) we have the same word that is used in the Old Testament to describe God’s glory cloud (shekinah) overshadowing the ark of the old Covenant. In the Annunciation Mary was overshadowed by God’s glory cloud having already been fashioned in a state of purity, according to God’s specifications, in preparation for the Incarnation of the Word, our eternal High Priest and the true Manna come down from heaven.

A garden enclosed is my sister (achoth), my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Songs 4, 12

And frankly it doesn’t, in a sense, even matter if she was sinless, in terms of benefit to anyone.

Well, if it doesn’t really matter whether Mary was sinless, then what’s all the fuss about among Protestants? In any event, it mattered to our heavenly Father.

Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom enters not,
nor dwells she in a body under debt of sin.
Wisdom 1, 4

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.”
Luke 1, 46

…let’s just look at what Jesus said when someone actually tried to venerate Mary in His presence:

"While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” --Luke 11:27-29

The Greek word for “rather” is ‘menounge’ which actually means “but in addition to” or “more”. Jesus acknowledges that his mother is indeed blessed on account of her offspring, but she is more blessed by having observed the word of God and keeping it. There is no reason why Jesus would have dishonoured his own mother in public, notwithstanding his perfect obedience to Mosiac law, considering she was a woman of true faith and is a perfect model for the Church. Our Lord is regarding Mary’s unique individual position with his heavenly Father of greater importance. His words in fact reflect Marian devotion in the infant Church. Jesus does warn us elsewhere that not everyone who claims to belong to him will enter the kingdom of heaven.

• Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word." *
  *Luke 1, 38 *

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

My, how Scripture can screw up some good dogma!

Oh, my! How Scripture can confirm some great dogma. :extrahappy:

PAX :tiphat:

 

[rinnie]

That is not my reasoning. Mine is the otherway around.

But you refuse to answer my question.

If Mary was not sinless, could Christ still have been born without sin?

This is a yes or no question.

I did answer you question when I said we all agree Jesus was born without sin because he was the Son of God.

Could Christ have been born without sin if Mary was not sinless? God can do anything he wants. Yes.

BUt what my point is that is a question that does not even have to be addressed because Mary was indeed sinless so that can not even be debated. So either way he was indeed born sinless.

I said that protestants claim that Mary’s Parents had original sin so she indeed had to of. They do not believe that Mary was saved at conception.

So now back at ya. Do you believe that if Mary had original sin then Jesus had to of. And if not why not? Why could God have saved Jesus and Not Mary?

 

[Canto]

Then you agree, she was a sinner; you are progressing toward the truth of Scripture.

Mary NEVER sinned. You said Mary said she sinned. My quote was a question asking for the Biblical reference where Mary herself supposedly admits to actually sinning.

When quoting Sripture, please please please put it in the proper context; otherwise you do the very thing you accuse others.
2Peter - The point is that the Holy Spirit is the only legitimate interpreter of Scripture…not me and not the Roman Catholic Church or any other.

So did the Holy Spirit say Mary sinned or did He say she didn’t sin? Are you reading the Holy Spirit right or is the Catholic Church?

1 Tim the “house of God” I believe is the first time a “building or meeting place” is referred to in Scripture…“Church” is the assembly of believers" the pillar and foundation is the preaching and teaching of God’s word - chosen by God…no reference to a denomination such as Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist etc.

The assembly of believers is know as the Church (singular) and Jesus appointed a hierarchical structure for his Church. This Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and contained in this Church is the written and oral word of God Paul tells the Thesselonians to hold onto. The Church is one with one set of doctrines.

Some claim Baptism is a sacrament for example but some claim you don’t even need to be Baptised - though all Christian they can’t all belong to the one assembly.

God did save the Mary of the Bible, she recognized and declared God as her Savior, then lived a life of obedience.

The point was could he not save her before contracting sin like a doctor giving someone a vaccine before they catch a disease.

 

[Canto]

I love the way Catholics down play the role of the the Bible as the Supreme Authority - standing above all else… There is nothing equal…nothing.

Nothing equal - than why does Paul tell the Thesselonains to hold onto Tradtion wether written or oral 2 Thess 2:14

Catholics put the written and oral word on equal pegging just like Paul.

Sure Paul says all scripture is inspired by God but he’s refering to the OT (the scripture Timothy learnt from his youth) and he say all scripture NOT only scripture.

And as for the supreme authority, doesn’t Paul call the Church the pillar and foundation of truth 1 Tim 3:15 and doesn’t Jesus say tell the Church - not consult your Bible Matt 18:17

How do you know all the books in the NT are rightfully there and that there are none missing - could it be because the Council of Rome in 382 AD said so? I don’t believe the Bible gives us a contents page.

 

[rinnie]

Non-Catholic, Show me one place in the bible where the Blessed Mother ever sinned?

 

[guanophore]

Then you agree, she was a sinner; you are progressing toward the truth of Scripture.

No, NC. Having been saved from sin does not mean one is a sinner. God can save equally well by preventing.

The truth of scripture can best be gleaned when it is read with the mindset of those who wrote it. Since you have become separated from the Apostolic succession, it will be difficult for you to undestand the truth of scripture.

When quoting Sripture, please please please put it in the proper context; otherwise you do the very thing you accuse others.

2Peter - The point is that the Holy Spirit is the only legitimate interpreter of Scripture…not me and not the Roman Catholic Church or any other.

At leasta we are in agreement on the point. And I also agree that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. However, Jesus gave His Spirit to His One Church, and promised that the Spirit will be guiding them into “all truth”. He did not give this promise to those outside the Church, or separated from the Apostles.

1 Tim the “house of God” I believe is the first time a “building or meeting place” is referred to in Scripture…“Church” is the assembly of believers" the pillar and foundation is the preaching and teaching of God’s word - chosen by God…no reference to a denomination such as Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist etc

No, they could not have buildings. They were being persecuted and killed. They could not have buildings until after the Edict of Milan in 325. While it is true that the Church is responsible for the preaching and teaching of God’s word, these are activities that proceed from the pillar and foundation of the Truth (the Church). The Church that Jesus founded is One, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic. These are the markers of the true Church.

If there is no “foundation”, the the Word of God or Jesus, then when the storm of judgment comes, the house will fall.

  God did save the Mary of the Bible, she recognized and declared God as her Savior, then lived a life of obedience.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

We believe she was saved at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin, so that the Saviour could take unstained flesh from her.

 

[guanophore]

You are limited due to your brainwashing.

NC, if you wish to remain on CAF, then I strongly suggest that you watch your tone. It is required here to respect the Catholic faith. You don’t have to agree, just be courteous.

Although I have never found a human mind that did not need washing by the Word of God, I think your reference is meant to be a derogatory remark about Catholic Teaching.

You are right, though, we are limited by Catholic Teaching.We are constrained by the Apostolic Faith from wandering into heresies.

We are given limited knowledge of Mary of the Bible because there is little to be said.

No, this is not the case. The Bible was never intended to be a complete compendium of all that needs to be said about the faith. If it were, God would not have appointed pastors and teachers.

I love the way Catholics down play the role of the the Bible as the Supreme Authority - standing above all else.

I do hope you come to love this in truth, since you seem to be steeped in a tradition that has made an idol out of the Bible. In fact, Jesus Christ does sand above all as the Supreme Authority. He was supreme before, during, and after the Bible was written. He does stand above all else.

Catholics love scripture, we just accept that Scripture cannot be an “authority” because authority requires accountability, and is germaine to persons, not books. What bible christians do is become their own authority, or accept another man made tradition as authority, thinking unwittingly that they are under the authority of the bible.

“You honor me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me”…this is God’s reply to those who believe anything else comes remotely close to Scripture in it’s authority and infallibility.

You are tryint to ascribe to scripture qualities that scripture does not have. In order to be fallible, first, one must be a person, and then one must be capable of action. One must have will, decision making ability, and enactment. Scripture has none of these qualities. The same is true for authority. Authority must be capable of obedience. The scripture cannot “obey” because it is not a person. This is the greatest problem with Sola Scriptura - expecting scripture to do things it cannot, nor ever was intended to do.

There is nothing equal…nothing. Yes there are many useful tools, such as books and some traditions, which aid us in our understanding of Scripture and worship.

I agree that scripture has special qualities that can be found nowhere else. Unfortunately, the qualities you are trying to assign to it, Jesus gave to the Church.

That would be pure speculation in light of what Scripture teaches. True believers only go by what God has chose to reveal and that is not one of them.

It is good to know that you can at least agree that the immaculate conception is possible for God to do. However, since not all of God’s revelation is limited to Scripture, and you don’t have access to the rest, you are in error that God has not chosen to reveal this.

1. Unlike yourself, I live on God’s revelation; whereas you live in some other revelation…I’m sorry but I can’t join you in that slippery slope.

It is not some “other” revelation, but the other half which the Reformers jettisoned. they were trying to purge corruption, and ended up cutting themselves off from a significant part of what God has revealed.

I have no knowledge of the birth of Mary of the Bible, other than she was human; therefore conceived from sinful parents and delivered in the usual way.

Just goes to show that 1) Not all knowledge is contained in scripture 2) there are things that NC does not know.

Mary was a human, conceived in the natural human manner (sexual relations) but God preserved her immediately from original sin. In this manner, she was created like Eve, so that she could be the new mother of all the living.

 

[nbtb1348]

No, I already know that she was such a woman, otherwise the angel would not have told her she found favor with God. However, since my doctrines are not dependent upon the Scripture, it is not a problem for me that there is no verse of scripture that says “Mary, you are without any stain of sin, original or personal”. Catholics receive their doctrines from Christ, through the Apostles.

You are right. We have this understanding because we have received the teaching of the Apostles. The Gk is just a reflection of what they believed and taught.

Well…we read it differently.

We disagree about the importance, but I do agree with you that the objection to Marian doctrines really does seem to be an obsession among “bible Christians”.

Actually, the words mean “but even more so”. How do we know that this is a more correct understanding? Because scripture has already told us that she is blessed because she was chosen to be his mother, so that is a given. Even MORE SO, is she blessed because she heard the words of God, and obeyed therm. Twice blessed! See, I told you we read it differently.

It truly is a matter of looking outside Scripture. It is what the Mormons do, the JW’s and others. God saw to it that Scripture was sufficient for all we would need, and that the canon would be properly completed. But it appears the RCC refuses to believe Paul when he says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be **thoroughly equipped **for every good work.”

And you are certainly right when you say your doctrines are not dependent on Scripture. That is, sadly, *the operative phrase *for the RCC and it is why the vast number of born again people stand outside–separated.

 

[guanophore]

It truly is a matter of looking outside Scripture. It is what the Mormons do, the JW’s and others.

Yes and no. Catholics do not go “looking” for divine revelation. We “receive” it from the Apostles. Jesus entrusted everything to them, and they entrusted it to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. Some of this revelation was written down in what we now call the New Testament. This collection of documents was never intended to be the entire compendium of the faith. If it were, Jesus would not have appointed pastors and teachers.

God saw to it that Scripture was sufficient for all we would need,

Really? Where does it say that in the Holy Writings?

and that the canon would be properly completed.

Really? How did God see to that?

But it appears the RCC refuses to believe Paul when he says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be **thoroughly equipped **for every good work.”

On the contrary, this was written by a Catholic, for Catholics.

Scripture is profitable. But the duty of teaching, rebuking, and training in rigtheousness He gave to the Church, starting with the Apostles. He charged them to “teach all that I have commanded”. Scripture is profitable for this, but one must keep in mind, when that directive was given by Christ, and when the above verse was written, there was no NT. That means they used the OT.

I doubt any modern Christian could live a good Christian life with only the OT. However, that is what they did, until the canon was formed in 382. How? They listened to their pastors and teachers, who trained them in the way they should go, so they could be thoroughly equipped.

And you are certainly right when you say your doctrines are not dependent on Scripture. That is, sadly, *the operative phrase *for the RCC and it is why the vast number of born again people stand outside–separated.

I agree that what the Apostles taught about being born again has been grossly distorted amongst our separated brethren. So much so that it is often said here that baptism has nothing to do with water!

The Apostles would be hoppin up and down!

But, you see, Catholics have always been devoted to the Apostles teaching, before, during, and after the scripture was written. We need not try to distill doctrines in a vaccuum, because Jesus preserved the Gospel just as He gave it to the Church. T’he NT reflects our beliefs, but the Source is Jesus.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m sorry, but just because you can quote Greek (’‘Kecharitomene’") doesn’t mean you have any real understanding of what was meant when when Gabriel greeted her. All of the talk about Mary and how her life was different is completely outside both the teaching of Scripture and the spirit of it. And frankly it doesn’t, in a sense, even matter if she was sinless, in terms of benefit to anyone. It is simply part of an obsession that occurs in many false religions. And, if you want to actually look at pertinent Scripture, let’s just look at what Jesus said when someone actually tried to venerate Mary in His presence:

"While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” --Luke 11:27-29

Hi nbtb1348.

I don’t want to get into an argument about translation, but I believe that “on the contrary” is a bit of an embellishment of the text. A better translation is “rather”. In other words, Jesus is redirecting that woman’s thought process, but he isn’t saying that her statement was false.

My, how Scripture can screw up some good dogma!

Hey don’t make me come over there!

Excellent point! However; I believe you will come across more credible if you leave out the last sentence…I know it is difficult, but stick to the facts without getting in digs and when you do, then apologize. Second, A good way is to read, then say to yourself, do I need to write this or will it distract and put people on the offensive against me. I’m not telling you what to do, but just some practical advise you did not ask for.

God bless you with His joy and peace this day!

 

[Peter_J]

And you are certainly right when you say your doctrines are not dependent on Scripture.

You’re entitle to your opinion, but please note that the RCC has never said that our doctrines are “not dependent on Scripture”.