Some examples of ECF's (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733).....

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Radical,

To come to the truth of Who Jesus Christ is, we all have to renounce ourselves to the total and entire depth of our being.

Being Christian always has the great temptation to consider one’s self righteous and better.

If you studied Tertullian’s history, you will find out that most of his life was in error. He was pagan until he became a Christian. He appeared to be drawn by the love expressed among Christians…the phrase I myself like to share.

But being Christian is not only about not being self-righteous, it is also not about simply being nice or loving. I see loving people among non-Christians. I see humble, self-effacing non-Christians.

Tertullian became a priest, and after his ordination, his former attraction to loving Christians changed. He became strict, to rigid, to harsh in his teachings. He went into Montanism…more harshness and began to promote heresy. St. Augustine lived a very promiscuous lifestyle. I read part of his confession…how many times he wanted to become a Christian but could not.

St. Augustine had to face the depths of his being and that is when he finally saw the demon of lust. St. Augustine was also a Montanist at one time. Like attracts like and here we are not looking at truth. Both Augustine and Tertullian were drawn to the same errors.

The difference between the two is that St. Augustine was faithful to the end. Tertullian’s conversion and true teachings were evident primarily in his life as a Christian layman.

So to say that you prefer to look only at Tertullian is showing me that you are picking and choosing cafeteria early church fathers which means no one except one who ended up in heresy. I doubt you would want to follow Tertullian in his slide away from the Apostolic teachings.
 
joe370 said:
Richard, God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; this verse is about Jesus who was/is sinless, but was sent to the world in the likeness of sinful flesh;** this passage has nothing to do with Mary.** Forget the catholic church for a moment. Doesn’t your heart tell you that the woman that gave birth to God, might have been the exception to the rule: all have sinned?
Click to expand...
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

How in the world can you make a statement like this. This verse has everything to do with Mary. Mary is the only flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of. The Father who supplied the seed to Mary’s egg was not flesh so the ONLY flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of is May’s flesh. Therefore Mary’s flesh was sinful. End of story!
 
KathleenGee said:
Mary was conceived without sin. Christ could not be in a sinful womb.
Click to expand...
I know that this is what you believe, but as far as I have been able to discern from this forum you have absolutely no proof of this from scripture. There isn’t really a very good implication for Mary being sinless. This however

Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

tells us flat out that Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

How in the world can you make a statement like this. This verse has everything to do with Mary. Mary is the only flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of. The Father who supplied the seed to Mary’s egg was not flesh so the ONLY flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of is May’s flesh. Therefore Mary’s flesh was sinful. End of story!
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I disagree with you Richard. This was not about Mary. It was about ‘man’ (mankind).
 
Richard,

Outside of the Bible, assembled by the Catholic Church…you have no other information about what happened after Book of Revelation in Salvation History. I mean, Christianity was just beginning. Christ broke the power of sin and rose from the dead, and gave His apostles the power to change ordinary bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity so we could partake in the Divine Life…He came flesh for us so we could enter into the Divine with Him…

He gave the Apostles His power to forgive sin and to ordain men chosen for Holy Orders.

So the Church began at Pentecost. But all we read of the Church is up through the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and Revelations…is that all there is to Christianity???

No…it is only the beginning…And Tradition insures that the Word of God is properly integrated into the life of the Church and faithful to the intent of the Apostles who witnessed Jesus Christ and His Oral Tradition.

So Scripture and Tradition – the life of the Church – go hand in hand. You are missing out on 1800 years of Christianity, that proves through countless lives that Jesus Christ did indeed rose from the dead, broke the power of sin, and has redeemed countless lives down through the ages of those who are members of the Catholic Church.

One could also make a statement that Mary made herself known to the Church through the ages.

If you only look at the Bible, then you are not looking at what happened to the beginning and history of Christianity. Christ came to give us new life. Where the Bible pages ended, the Church began…continuing with Scripture but now the Word of God truly a Living Word Among Us…
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Respectfully, I disagree with you Richard. This was not about Mary. It was about ‘man’ (mankind).
Click to expand...
Then we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t see how you can take this any other way than that it is saying Mary was sinful flesh.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Then we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t see how you can take this any other way than that it is saying Mary was sinful flesh.
Click to expand...
God came to earth in the flesh, as man was of flesh. That is the likeness. It was not about Mary. To narrow it down like that appears to be seeking an answer you want and not what it’s telling us. Show us some Bible commentaries that would agree with you Richard, please?
 
Richard,

Where in Scripture does it explicitly say that Mary’s flesh is sinful, that she, the Mother of God is sinful???
 
A similar phrase occurs in Phil. 2:7: “he was made in the likeness of men.” Emphasis is on the similitude of Christ’s nature to ours; though like us in nature he was not like us in character. He was the sinless One.

Likeness: synonyms: likeness, similarity, similitude, resemblance, analogy, affinity…His own son resembling sinful flesh etc…This has nothing to do with Mary, but you feel free to believe it brother.
Richard_Kastner said:
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

How in the world can you make a statement like this. This verse has everything to do with Mary. Mary is the only flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of. The Father who supplied the seed to Mary’s egg was not flesh so the ONLY flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of is May’s flesh. Therefore Mary’s flesh was sinful. End of story!
Click to expand...
 
KathleenGee said:
Richard,

Where in Scripture does it explicitly say that Mary’s flesh is sinful, that she, the Mother of God is sinful???
Click to expand...
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Click to expand...
Richard,

Will you please post some Bible commentaries, ECF, or other sources that support your view of that verse please?
 
Richard, your quote is not referring to Mary and her state as the Mother of God.

Also St. Peter said we are not to personally interpret Scriptures and you are when you are denying the holiness of Mary, blessed in every generation.

Calling or inferring that the Mother of God had sinful flesh is denying her lawful and appropriate motherhood for the Son of God.
 
KathleenGee said:
Richard,

Where in Scripture does it explicitly say that Mary’s flesh is sinful, that she, the Mother of God is sinful???
Click to expand...
KathleenGee, Protestants like form where I came use the term “necessary inference” to describe things that MUST BE TRUE because that is the way God created all of us. They also assume that a man men can’t do without sex. Not all, but enough of the ones dedicated to perpetuated the misinformation, stories and lies. Truth be known they really do not trust that God could create men or women that could be holy. It’s not that I’m insulting them I believe that they are blinded by the lies and the fact that they are insulting God and holy men and women throughout time. If they drop their guard for one minute its like they believe their speaking to Satan himself and that is not allowed. What they believe to be a story or even a lie is a BIG LIE and therefore seriously sinful that would cost them their soul. Fortunately, many of us do open our minds along our journey and come to realize the error of our ways, our thinking.

God granted me the grace and conversion of heart that I ceased to believe that Catholics were without doubt headed straight to hell. I realized that baptists were not necessarily going to hell. I realized that Pentecostals were not necessarily going to hell. I realized …get the drift? The point scripture speaks about all of those that do not know for one reason or another. The scripture speaks of varying degrees of sin (which Protestants blatantly ignore). The bible speaks of baptism (which some Protestants ignore). The bible speaks of the bread and wine being the body of Christ (which most Protestants ignore). They ignore the nuances of scripture in context of Jewish culture with Jesus referring to Mary, His mother, as “woman” and what it really meant. I could write a book on all of these, but what would it profit it they don’t read even the scriptures in context and refuse, in their pride, to accept that which is pretty clearly written, at least clear to me.

Mary is the Mother of God, the THEOTOKOS, and like the canon of scripture was settled. But they want to restab and twist the knife to hurt Catholics because it is the “big bully” that tells them they are wrong and do not have authority to be in a state of separation. The Church beacons them to return home to the Catholic Church, which sort of delegitimatizes them. Is someone went to you and called your marriage into question it makes you feel illegitimate. I think you get where I’m going with this. We are all sinful and fall short of the glory of God. Some of the best Catholics that I know in my life never stepped foot into a Catholic Church. My FIL was one of them. He did many things that we are supposed to do in the form of corporal works of mercy.
 
KathleenGee said:
Richard, your quote is not referring to Mary and her state as the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
Here’s what you said
Originally Posted by KathleenGee
…if I understand your point…God defined Christ’s gender, but Jesus received His flesh and blood from His mother…she was created sinless by God the Father.
Click to expand...
Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

By your own mouth “Jesus recieved His flesh and blood from His mother.” Rom.8:3 says that the flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of is sinful flesh, therefore Jesus’ mother’s flesh is sinful. It’s a simple case of logic Kathleen
Also St. Peter said we are not to personally interpret Scriptures and you are when you are denying the holiness of Mary, blessed in every generation.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not show me the scripture that says she is sinless. There are many that say that Jesus is sinless. If Mary were sinless surely scripture would afford her the same credit.
Calling or inferring that the Mother of God had sinful flesh is denying her lawful and appropriate motherhood for the Son of God.
Click to expand...
Well you seem to think it appropriate to make up qualifications for Jesus mother that are nowhere to be found in the bible. And I am not calling or inferring that the mother of God had sinful flesh. Rom.8:3 is saying it.
 
yes, the “likeness” of sinful human flesh. it does not say he was born of “sinful” human flesh. hmmm? i think this passage could actually support the sinlessness of Mary, instead of the opposite. 🙂
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Here’s what you said

Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

By your own mouth “Jesus recieved His flesh and blood from His mother.” Rom.8:3 says that the flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of is sinful flesh, therefore Jesus’ mother’s flesh is sinful. It’s a simple case of logic Kathleen
**Actually your holding to Gnostic ideas by trying to push this as your belief. The flesh is sinful so we try to get rid of it. knowledge is pure and truth. There were people back then that prepared their followers to kill themselves because the flesh was evil. You need to keep scripture in context to the meaning of the passage. Your point would separate the humaness of Chrst from His divinity, a Gnostic teaching. Gnosticism is a heresy and there was not only one but many different types.

**No, I’m not show me the scripture that says she is sinless. There are many that say that Jesus is sinless. If Mary were sinless surely scripture would afford her the same credit.
The bible does not tell us to build churches or use microphones either. The scripture doesn’t say that God is one with three distinct persons either, yet that is what most Christians believe. It does not have to be spelled out clearly to satisfy your curiosities either. It was believed by Christians and especially Church leaders in the early Church as has been presented. Surely scripture would define a lot of things, but it doesn’t, for example, which books clearly belong in sacred scripture. Do you not see the circular nature of your argument? 🤷 It doesn’t make sense.

Well you seem to think it appropriate to make up qualifications for Jesus mother that are nowhere to be found in the bible. And I am not calling or inferring that the mother of God had sinful flesh. Rom.8:3 is saying it.
Click to expand...
Luke 2 gets into “Mary, full of grace” one can not have the stain of sin and be “FULL” of grace, grace being holiness. Sin is not holy. Your problem is that you are trying to find the exact words. You, like most Protestants and even Catholics today, don’t understand these things well enough to make the claims you do make. Scripture tells you not to isolate yourself from the teachers, yet you do. Well meaning as it may be it’s still incorrect and goes against what the bible tells us to do. Your trying to pull a double standard from what I can see. Believe what I say becuase it’s not in the scripture and then say I don’t believe that is what it means, when its clear.

catholicintl.com/articles/kecharitomene.pdf

My conversion pivoted upon learning this and coming to realize that my pride was standing in the way after being exposed to so much anti-Catholic rhetoric growing up. It works or me and so I’ve place my trust in God to guide me through it.

I’ll have to come back and clarify, I’m about to pass out cold.
 
Hi Richard,

I am always concerned about your penchant to share Bible quotes as answers to Church issues.

Do you know why the Church had the Council of Nicea? Because Christians were becoming imbalanced in their understanding of Christ…He is God…but they were losing their sense of His humanity.

If we spend too much on the literal and surface understanding of Scripture, we lose sight of its deep intent, its humanity.

Mary began to extend her maternal presence into the Church within 200 years after her assumption. It was she herself , by demonstration of her loving presence to Christians, that brought about the Church to look at her and study her. There have been many saints who speak and teach of the spiritual life, some of them doctors of the church.

What developed was a common spiritual walk basic to all Christians. The wages of sin are death. But Tradition holds that something miraculous happened at Mary’s passing and we have no other information, and we have no tomb of Mary.

What the Church began to discerrn after many, many years is that her spiritual walk was more in following Christ’s…

Instead of bearing sin and the wages of sin is death, Mary bore the fruit of Jesus Christ. This has deep implication. And the only way the Church could understand better, was in the help of Mary’s work for Christians all down through time.

It was Mary’s own interaction with the Christian believers, through bearing not sin but the fruit of Jesus Christ, that the Church began to study Mary and see she is indeed the Immaculate Conception.
 
Richard,

Again you are not showing me reference that Mary’s flesh was sinful. You are not connecting either to Scripture that Jesus was like us in all things but sin.

How could Jesus receive sinless flesh from a human being, an inheritor of original sin?

How do you explain the Angel Gabriel then that in God all things are possible…

Is it not impossible for God to create Mary without sin at her conception?..if for the sole mission as being the human means to bring His son into the world???
 
Kathleen, I have been just sitting back and watching how this thread is progressing. It is the same as with every other thread that deals with the Blessed Mother. Some Protestants just can’t come to terms that the Catholic Church (the one true authentic authority that can validly interpret Sacred Scripture) has got it right. Some Protestants take their Bibles and read it in a vacuum and use their own fallible private interpretations to formulate their own personal brand of theology.

As I stated back in post 14, it is beyond their ability to comprehend that that it is conceivable that someone could live a celibate life consecrated to God and that God has the ability to create a life that could walk this earth in a sinless state. But wait…… What about Adam and Eve, did God not create them and did they not walk this earth in a sinless state until their downfall? So this is not the first time God has created a being to live and walk this earth in a sinless state.

What it boils down to is that it is nothing more than an attack on the Catholic Church and her beliefs. It has nothing to do with the truth, it has nothing to do with what is just, it has everything to do with the sin of those who try and erode at the foundations of the fullness of truth. Funny how the great deceiver works in people’s lives and takes every opportunity to try and stain Christ’s Church. In the end we need to pray for these individuals that they be opened to the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top