second question for our non-catholic brethern

[superwimp]

It seems clear that
[1] God did start a New religion [set of faith beliefs]

[2} did found a new church [structure and organization]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20 are evidence of this.

SO DEAR FRIENDS MY QUESTION IS:

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

[2] Give [transfer] the necesary Powers and Authority to them?

God Bless you!
Patrick

Hello PJM,

 I haven't read through all the responses but I was wondering if your original post wouldn't be designed to proselytize.  Was that the intent of your original post?

“If your purpose in posting on the NCR forum is to proselytize, your account will be closed.”

 

[pocohombre]

whenever we attempt to interpret and understand the bible, we should start with the facts that: 1) Jesus spent three years with the apostles teaching and training them; 2) the bible does not contain all that Jesus taught the apostles and through the apostles, us; 3) the books of the new testament were written long after the Church was born; 4) it is quite impossible that everything Jesus did and taught the apostles in His three years of traveling and living with them could have been written down in the few books that compose the new testament; 5) the contents of our faith were transmitted through speech for years before anyone wrote any of it down; and, 6) the bible is meant only to be an aid in growing our faith and holiness.

Going good til the “only”. His written words are a bit more than that .

where does a person go to learn what Jesus taught but was not included in the sacred scriptures?

It is an assumption that what He taught in fullness is not in scripture. Same for Judaism and OT.

is it possible to possess the fullness of the faith without learning what Jesus taught that was not written down in the new testament?

Yes. Fullness needs to be defined however. The OT had the written word AND the Talmud,a collection of interpretations and teachings, but on and about the written Torah. Both were influential but it was understood the mainframe was the written. Now here is where tradition can help: to discern properly things that Jesus did not mention in specific, using what He did mention/wrote in general. For instance new challenges that come our way that weren’t around then (can’t think of any now, maybe when to celebrate Easter ? etc). Otherwise you open pandoras box. The CC has properly tried to restrain herself by at least not trying to contradict scripture (though any error by any church is contradiction). As a matter of fact she has made no faith or moral pronouncements without her interpretive biblical foundation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh yeah there is that verse in the 22nd chapter of John that clearly states the nature of Christ.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Death reigned from the time of Adam.

So Mary who was a sinner and through her Jesus became subject to Gods law.

I’m not familiar with John 22?

 

[Protestor]

Protestor, I’m waiting for you to show us in SS understanding the Trinity, Nature of Jesus Christ, Incarnation, original sin, the continuity of understanding.

Lets go by your premise for the heck of it and assume the CC is wrong for the sake of cicular argument.

Ok so your right, above then, explain away, I’m all ears. I want to learn

My friend has a bible with all the times that the father the son and the spirit are mentioned or implied just to show jehovah’s witnesses that it is not a man made doctrine. I think it is the 100ish number of times. JW’s are wrong about Jn1 Jesus is God I basically proved this in scrip. Is original sin disputed? What is continuity of understanding?

Though it may not seem like it I have a life outside this forum and when you put shrug face at the end of your post you make me not want to waste my time for someone who does not care.

Oh I think I know what you actually want me to prove. This is super ruff but I think you get the point
[1] Infallible means not wrong
[2] tradition is wrong (remember you gave this one to me)
//[3] Tradition is fallible. (by modus ponens I think)

I do not see the circularity, but maybe I am wrong.

 

[Protestor]

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Death reigned from the time of Adam.

So Mary who was a sinner and through her Jesus became subject to Gods law.

I’m not familiar with John 22?

That is because it does not exist. I could not resist.

“So Mary who was a sinner and through her Jesus became subject to Gods law.” She was always subject to God’s laws at least the way I see it

 

[GaryTaylor]

Whats circular is the undetermined reality of who is wrong, which we have set out to investigate?

John 22?

Mary a sinner subject to Gods law, Jesus becomes man and is a sinner or what?

 

[Randy_Carson]

i must have missed it.

where exactly in sacred scripture and Church history is the support for believing that the Blessed Virgin Mary was NOT preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception?

there seem to be some people who strongly reject that teaching.

exactly what support from scripture and history do they provide to justify their rejection?

The classic is: For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

However, that is easily explained and is not a problem for the Immaculate Conception and sinlessness of Mary.

 

[Protestor]

Hello PJM,

A troll in true form. Have fun there is plenty to be had here

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you mistake me for someone who is trying to defend a point. In case you missed it I am not. On a less crass note I sadly brought the subject up by accident. My point was more about infallibility and less to do with Mary. It was actually like 70 posts back around the mid to late 30’s if you feel like looking for it.

Just for clarification I am not looking for quotes that state your opinion this time. Instead this time I am looking for why it could not have happened any other way. I am looking for this because to me the proposition seems to be that Mary had to be immaculately conceived and she had to be sinless for her whole life in order that Christ could be birthed by her.

Well, I would take a slightly different approach. IMO, God is omnipotent and can do pretty much whatever He wants. So, if He wanted Jesus to be born of a sinner, He could have done so. However, He chose another plan.

I do think there are some strong reasons why God chose to protect Mary from sin from the moment of her conception, but protecting Jesus from the stain of original sin was not one of them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is because it does not exist. I could not resist.

“So Mary who was a sinner and through her Jesus became subject to Gods law.” She was always subject to God’s laws at least the way I see it

So what is the significance of the salutation at the Annunciation? So this made Jesus subject to the law which Mary was subject to?

Right John 22 does not exist, thus which replacement verse?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello PJM,

 I haven't read through all the responses but I was wondering if your original post wouldn't be designed to proselytize.  Was that the intent of your original post?

“If your purpose in posting on the NCR forum is to proselytize, your account will be closed.”

If that is proselytizing, then all of our accounts will be closed.

 

[Protestor]

Whats circular is the undetermined reality of who is wrong, which we have set out to investigate?

Mary a sinner subject to Gods law, Jesus becomes man and is a sinner or what?

(Mary) By your own reasoning Mary could not have been IC, because her parents sinned and were subject to God’s laws. Reasoning fail

It is a determined reality wether you are aware of it or not is another question. For some reason we have set out to see why IC is a false doctrine. This will just be silly because you could not change your belief even if you thought it was wrong. Maybe I can make you see that your faith in the belief is unnecessarily placed nothing is gained from the doctrine.

 

[Protestor]

Well, I would take a slightly different approach. IMO, God is omnipotent and can do pretty much whatever He wants. So, if He wanted Jesus to be born of a sinner, He could have done so. However, He chose another plan.

Omnipotent, pretty much as long as we are not including things non-perfect things. I have seen people try to include that before.

 

[eddie_too]

what an interesting perspective.

nothing is gained from following the teachings of the RCC, i.e. the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the Real Presence, the Holy Trinity, the forgiveness of sins, etc., etc., etc.

it becomes a little bizarre when the person making such a comment is pretty much completely unaware of the fullness of the teachings of the RCC.

who could not pull some concept out of context and make irrational claims about the concept?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am looking for this because to me the proposition seems to be that Mary had to be immaculately conceived and she had to be sinless for her whole life in order that Christ could be birthed by her.

I don’t think “had to” is correct. It was, appropriate to.

Appropriate in the same sense as it was appropriate to have a holy and pure ark in which to place the 10 commandments, the jar of manna, and the staff of Aaron.

It could have been placed in any old container, but it was appropriate to place it in an appropriate vessel.

 

[bubbawanda]

It seems clear that
[1] God did start a New religion [set of faith beliefs]

[2} did found a new church [structure and organization]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20 are evidence of this.

SO DEAR FRIENDS MY QUESTION IS:

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

[2] Give [transfer] the necesary Powers and Authority to them?

God Bless you!
Patrick

To my imperfect understanding this is not belief. Its actual history and the more we find archaeological evidence, the more that debate is settled. I figure the other denoms are just another interpretation and means to praise God.
I truly believe in freedom of religion and I believe that freedom only produces more enthusiastic parishioners and makes their church the vital force for good.
Frankly not believing the veracity of this is kinda like not believing in clogged Los Angeles freeways. Long as you stay away you’re fine, but if you wind up there, better open your eyes and pay attention!

 

[GaryTaylor]

(Mary) By your own reasoning Mary could not have been IC, because her parents sinned and were subject to God’s laws. Reasoning fail.

We are not using CC doctrine, we are using SS. But you do not see where already your stuck, and look how quickly.

Mary sinner, Jesus subject to the law of man. How can you explain using Scripture Only?

Everyone is a sinner according to SS and Paul (Romans) How can you explain this without going outside of scripture.

Either God preserved Mary somehow which scripture does not explicitly state.

Or he somehow passed through Mary without effecting His Divinity and Her humanity. But he was human and took His humanity from Her. Or He was conceived in a state of sin, what does the Bible say?

How? Its not in the Bible the speculation you would have to verbalize from this point?

 

[PRmerger]

I hate reading the bible is the only book (other than Harry Potter) that I have even come close to reading all the way through. Sometimes I say I have read something if I have listened to it on audible. Reading excerpts is fine looking for doctrine or def’s are fine but reading the whole thing is not something I am capable of. I have read all of the books of the bible save Habakuk most a few times over but not all the way through in one shot. I’m at Psalms 104 but I am taking a break and reading Matthew quick. The armchair thing was a pot shot at myself.

Ah, ok, then.

 

[PRmerger]

So from the whole of I.D. the only infallible thing is that Mary was immaculately conceived. I do not think you understand how I cannot take that seriously. If this is to be a document that is authoritative, a document that is supposed to have the same inspiration as the bible.

No, Protestor.

No document presented by the Church, save for the Bible Alone, is considered to “have the same inspiration as the bible.”

You seem to be confusing “infallible” with “inspired”.

Not the same thing.

At all.

 

[eddie_too]

by whose authority do protestants reject the teachings of the RCC?