struggling with mary

[po18guy]

This is simply untrue. Luther’s doubts about these books were shared by others of his time, and in fact he did not cause them to be excluded from Scripture. The Reformed bear the responsibility for that far more than Luther did.

This isn’t relevant to this thread. But it’s a blatant slander against Luther and I didn’t want to let it pass.

Edwin

So, Luther’s own bible did not segregate the seven books away from the books which he considered “inspired” books? Philipp Melanchthon did not have to persuade him to leave seven other books of the New Testament in his bible?

 

[Goya]

This is simply untrue. Luther’s doubts about these books were shared by others of his time, and in fact he did not cause them to be excluded from Scripture. The Reformed bear the responsibility for that far more than Luther did.

This isn’t relevant to this thread. But it’s a blatant slander against Luther and I didn’t want to let it pass.

Edwin

Of course he didn’t–he had no authority over what was scripture, and what wasn’t, what was inspired, or what wasn’t.

…what he did do however, with the cooperation of the ‘Reformed’, was mis-lead hundreds of millions into believing that several books weren’t/aren’t scripture, which were/are.

However, by the grace of God, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church that Christ actually founded, withstood this attack, resisted this deception, and continued to preserve the written Word of God intact and inviolate, as it had for 15 centuries before, and as it continued to do since, and as it continues to do, to this day.

---

Thought of the day:

Had the actual fiduciaries of the Word of God–the actual successors of the successors of the Apostles–the popes and bishops of the Catholic Church–each taken even a fraction of the liberties the reformers pretended to take with Scripture, during the 15+ centuries in which they alone guarded, preserved and protected it–e.g.–gratuitously infusing the word ‘solo’ before ‘fide’, where they though it would suit their own personal feelings about what the Faith that Christ actually handed down to them should have said…had they amputated this book, and/or that one to suit their own personal feelings about what the Faith that Christ actually handed down to them should have been…perhaps even added new ones…

…would the result of that bible even remotely resemble the Bible you so cherish today???

---

.

 

[po18guy]

Of course he didn’t–he had no authority over what was scripture, and what wasn’t, what was inspired, or what wasn’t.

…what he did do however, with the cooperation of the ‘Reformed’, was mis-lead hundreds of millions into believing that several books weren’t/aren’t scripture, which were/are.

However, by the grace of God, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church that Christ actually founded, withstood this attack, resisted this deception, and continued to preserve the written Word of God intact and inviolate, as it had for 15 centuries before, and as it continued to do since, and as it continued to do, to this day.

Odd to blame Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) and/or his followers for tampering with scripture, since both Calvin and Luther are on the Episcopalian calendar of saints (May 28th and February 18th, respectively). Yet, history records well that Luther was inarguably the spark behind the rebellion, and that within his own communion, and in the structure of his own bible, he enforced his opinions regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration of scripture. I can find no parallel or equivalent work by Calvin.

As to the legal charge levied against me, as a legal precept, it is impossible to slander a dead person. As to speaking ill of Luther, I restate history and let that speak for itself. “Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.” (but, these are the words taken from the book of 2 Maccabees, so I hang my future and reputation on that which the reformers do not consider to be inspired).

Slanderous allegations aside, I do wish that a certain poster would address the core Marian doctrines in a substantive fashion.

 

[Contarini]

Odd to blame Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) and/or his followers for tampering with scripture, since both Calvin and Luther are on the Episcopalian calendar of saints (May 28th and February 18th, respectively).

The Reformed are not best described as followers of Calvin, since the Reformed movement predated him. T

Also, Calvin was added in 2010, in Holy Women, Holy Men, a revision of Lesser Feasts and Fasts which is not used in my diocese (at least not encouraged by the bishop–I don’t know if he actively forbids it), though not because of Calvin’s inclusion.

You also don’t seem to understand what inclusion in the calendar means for Episcopalians. Perhaps you should have asked one. It certainly doesn’t mean agreement with all a person’s theological views. I actually like the fact that we celebrate a wide variety of Christians without necessarily endorsing everything about them–it’s one of the reasons I have found it very hard to leave Anglicanism.

None of this, of course, is relevant to the OP.

Yet, history records well that Luther was inarguably the spark behind the rebellion, and that within his own communion, and in the structure of his own bible, he enforced his opinions regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration of scripture.

Putting them in a separate category hardly “enforces” an opinion as to their inspiration. It simply signals that they have a lesser, more dubious status, an opinion held by quite a lot of scholars throughout the early Church and the Middle Ages.

I can find no parallel or equivalent work by Calvin.

Obviously, because Calvin didn’t translate the Bible! His cousin Olivetan did, however, at the behest of Calvin’s colleague William Farel. This translation included the deuterocanonicals with a note questioning their status.

For Calvin’s view, see his Antidote to the Council of Trent, Fourth Session (thanks to Dave Armstrong for the link).But you’re mistaken in taking Calvin to be the founder of the Reformed movement. In fact, you and many other Catholics are just too hung up on founders generally when it comes to Protestantism. Much better to look at confessional statements and historic practices.

As to the legal charge levied against me, as a legal precept, it is impossible to slander a dead person.

Don’t be silly. It wasn’t a legal charge, though I’m sorry for using the word. You did overstate the case. There’s no evidence that Luther was the primary influence on this particular issue, especially given that his position was more moderate than that of some.

The point you and other Catholic apologists routinely ignore is that questions about the status of the deuterocanonical books had popped up repeatedly over the centuries, and were raised in the sixteenth century by Cajetan, among other Catholic scholars. Also, given Luther’s flexible “some books are more important than others” understanding of the canon, the issue just isn’t as black or white with him as it was with the Reformed. You don’t find the books actually being removed from physical copies of the Bible until the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, as far as I know.

Slanderous allegations aside, I do wish that a certain poster would address the core Marian doctrines in a substantive fashion.

If you mean me, why not say so? Why be so coy? And if you want me to say more about Mary than I’ve said, please be more specific.

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

The Reformed are not best described as followers of Calvin, since the Reformed movement predated him.

Point made, but look who concurred with them, assisted, promoted or followed them.

Putting them in a separate category hardly “enforces” an opinion as to their inspiration. It simply signals that they have a lesser, more dubious status, an opinion held by quite a lot of scholars throughout the early Church and the Middle Ages.

You may accept their lesser status as fact. Those in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches disagree, with the apostolic authority to test and declare doubts about them as error - which the Catholic Church did. The Orthodox de facto make the same declaration by their continued inclusion.

Obviously, because Calvin didn’t translate the Bible! His cousin Olivetan did, however, at the behest of Calvin’s colleague William Farel. This translation included the deuterocanonicals with a note questioning their status.

Yes! And no one in the reform had the ability or authority to call a council to decide their canonicity. Problem. Since no reformer could know with certainty that the 7 books were canonical or not, doubt grew and today they have virtually disappeared. Does not the fact that Farel and Melanchthon had to urge their compatriots to retain (or not exclude) scriptures indicate the radical nature of the reformers? I think so.

For Calvin’s view, see his Antidote to the Council of Trent, Fourth Session (thanks to Dave Armstrong for the link).But you’re mistaken in taking Calvin to be the founder of the Reformed movement. In fact, you and many other Catholics are just too hung up on founders generally when it comes to Protestantism. Much better to look at confessional statements and historic practices.

Those anonymous confessions are, by Catholic definition, error. So, do we focus on anonymous confessions, or rather on the men who spurred the revolution on? You cannot discipline confessions. Neither can confessions be cross examined.

The point you and other Catholic apologists routinely ignore is that questions about the status of the deuterocanonical books had popped up repeatedly over the centuries, and were raised in the sixteenth century by Cajetan, among other Catholic scholars. Also, given Luther’s flexible “some books are more important than others” understanding of the canon, the issue just isn’t as black or white with him as it was with the Reformed. You don’t find the books actually being removed from physical copies of the Bible until the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, as far as I know.

Did not the license exercised by the reformers on even foundational aspects of the Church not set the stage for these later deletions? Once the lid was off of Pandora’s box, even doctrine was almost wide open. As to questions regarding the 7 books, Jerome was neither pope nor council. Cajetan was neither pope nor council.

If you mean me, why not say so? Why be so coy? And if you want me to say more about Mary than I’ve said, please be more specific. Edwin

Because she knows who she is.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Get back on topic and off the canon/Deuterocanonicals.

 

[Miriam1947]

Thank you Michael.

 

[Goya]

…

You also don’t seem to understand what inclusion in the calendar means for Episcopalians. Perhaps you should have asked one. It certainly doesn’t mean agreement with all a person’s theological views. I actually like the fact that we celebrate a wide variety of Christians without necessarily endorsing everything about them–it’s one of the reasons I have found it very hard to leave Anglicanism.
…

Edwin

I’ll address this, and segway back on track to thread topic.

Your assertion here, seems to suggest that inclusion in the Catholic liturgical calendar, means that we’re are in agreement with all such a person’s theological views. That is not correct. For example–even among the 33 (actually, I think it’s up to 35) DOCTORS of the Church–there are many ‘theological views’ even they espoused, which the Church expressly rejects–to say nothing of the approx. one hundred Saints that appear on the Calendar, let alone the thousands of Saints which have been canonized by the Church, but don’t appear on the liturgical calendar.

They are canonized Saints, by virtue of the way the lived their lives (and by prayerful invocation of, and submission to, the Holy Spirit), and therefore declared worthy veneration, and emulation; and on the Calendar, by virtue of their influence (there just aren’t enough days to accommodate all of the Saints, and some have simply been more influential for longer, than others).

Which brings up my next point…

 

[Goya]

Re-posted for context, and to bring us back on track:

Rather than addressing your question from an ‘academic’ or even theological perspective, I’m going to address it personally.

For reference–my wife is evangelical protestant. To her and her people, Mary is like repellant. It freaks her and her family, and all her people, out. Truly freaks them out.

Let me put it to you this way–Mary is the Mother of Chirst; yet they can not, to save their lives, formulate a positive comment about her, that isn’t immediately nagated with “but…”.

As in, “Mary was the Jesus’s mother…BUT that’s all”.

or “…BUT she was also a sinner”

or “…BUT she’s just another human being”

or “…BUT she had relations with Joseph, and had other children…”

I volunteer this for reference.

Now, here’s what brought be BACK to Mary:

When I looked at the Christians throughout history, what the Church Fathers had to say, as well as what contemporary Christians say…I realized that my aspirational peers were Catholic, and many/most held the Virgin Mary in the highest esteem.

I chose to–in fact, continuously choose to–strive to be like them.

As with so much of my search into protestantism, it almost always came down to:

The Church Fathers and the Saints (never mind the Popes) on one side; and the Reformers on the other. (e.g.–wrt—the Real Presence/Eucharist; confession; celibate priesthood; male priesthood; Baptism; basically the sacraments…).

So, I suggest stepping back, and asking yourself–as a Christian, who do you want to seek to emulate, and be more like?

St. Joseph, St. John, St. Polycarp, St. Ireneaus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Dominic, St. Francis of assisi, St. Basil, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Moore, St. Therese of Lisseux, Pope Paul VI, Blessed Mother of Calcutta, Blessed Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, just to name a few that come to mind…

–or–

Martin Luther, John Calvin, “Drs.” Spurgeon Sr &/Jr., Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, or Joel Osteen…

Then ask yourself where each/they stood, vis a vis the Virgin Mary.

NOTE: worth noting–before the ‘Reform movement’ fully lost its way (i.e. the movement that would stray and later be named --rather self-servingly, and inaccurately imo, as the Reformation) Martin Luther–(even AFTER he had been defrocked and excommunicated), made many statements that were very flattering to the Virgin Mary–read into that, what you will.

But, for good measure, here is a quote from St. Irenaeus:

Now, in addition to those Saints I mentioned above, having a sincere devotion to Mary, I’ll take this opportunity to supplement:

Begin with: Blessed Mother *TERESA *of Calcutta (as I forgot to include the capped in prior post);

Add:

–Saint Louis Marie de Montfort
–St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori
–St. Faustina
–Saint Maximilian Kolbe
–St. Josemaria Escriva
–Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Father and Doctor of the Church
–St. John Vianney
–Saint Francis de Sales
–Saint Ildephonsus, Bishop
–Saint John Damascene
–Saint Germanus of Constantinople, Patriarch of Constantinople
–Pope Saint Gregory VII
–Saint Anselm, Archbishop and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Bonaventure, Cardinal-Bishop and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Cajetan, Founder of the Theatines
–Saint Francis Borgia
–Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal-Bishop and Doctor of the Church
–Saint John Eudes
–Blessed William Joseph Chaminade
–Pope Pius XII, 1876-1958 AD
–Saint Hilary of Poitiers - Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Anthony of Padua, Doctor of the Church
–Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Father and Doctor of the Church
–Saint John Damascene, Father and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Padre Pio
–Pope Saint Pius X
–Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman
–St. Clare ('Poor Clares)
–St. Rose of Lima
–St. Joan of Arc
–St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
–St. Bernadette of Lourdes

Still others–perhaps I’ll post somemore–but I’ll close out this post, with a quote from St. Louis de Montfort, that seems to express the point rather well:

“The greatest saints, those richest in grace and virtue will be the most assiduous in praying to the most Blessed Virgin, looking up to her as the perfect model to imitate and as a powerful helper to assist them.”

–Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

 

[Goya]

…and one of my all time favorite passages, concerning Mary, from ‘the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas’ , that really puts things into perspective:

…
“HAIL MARY”

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when Angels appeared to men; and that man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. Thus, it is written to the praise of Abraham that he received the Angels with all courtesy and showed them reverence. But that an Angel should show reverence to a man was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin saying: “Hail.”

THE ANGEL’S DIGNITY

In olden time an Angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would deeply revere an Angel. This is because Angels are greater than men, and indeed in three ways. First, they are greater than men in dignity. This is because the Angel is of a spiritual nature: “Who makest Thy angels spirits.”[4] But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for Abraham said: "I

will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes."[5] It was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Secondly, an Angel is closer to God. The Angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as it were stands ever by Him: “Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.”[6] Man, on the other hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: “I have gone afar off.”[7] Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an Angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, thirdly, the Angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of divine grace. For Angels participate in the highest degree in the divine light: “Is there any numbering of His soldiers? And upon whom shall not His light arise?”[8] Hence, the Angels always appear among men clothed in light, hut men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an Angel should show reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in human nature who exceeded the Angels in these three points in which we have seen that they excel over men–and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show that she excelled the Angels in these, the Angel desired to show her reverence, and so he said: “Ave (Hail).”

“FULL OF GRACE”

The Blessed Virgin was superior to any of the Angels in the fullness of grace, and as an indication of this the Angel showed reverence to her by saying: “Full of grace.” This is as if he said: “I show thee reverence because thou dost excel me in the fullness of grace.”

The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace in three ways. First, as regards her soul she was full of grace. The grace of God is given for two chief purposes, namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin, then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided every sin more than any other Saint after Christ. Thus it is said: “Thou art fair, My beloved, and there is not a spot in thee.”[9] St. Augustine says: "If we could bring together all the Saints and ask them if they were entirely without sin, all of them, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, would say with one voice: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.’[10] I except, however, this holy Virgin of whom, because of the honor of God, I wish to omit all mention of sin."[11] For we know that to her was granted grace to overcome every kind of sin by Him whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, and He certainly was wholly without sin.

…

 

[crochet_lady]

goya – you’ve been waiting for a response from me – well – there’s been a lot going on in my world lately. Obviously there’s a difference of beliefs between myself and the Catholic church.

And it hasn’t been on the basis of one man’s ideas that the 7 Apocraphal books have been kept or deleted.

But - back to your comments "If Jesus intended to form a 'book religion or a faith community and the relative importance of Scripture "
It is through faith in Jesus Christ that we Have a ‘faith’ community. And That is based on Scripture. And Scripture IS God’s Word.
One of the ‘questions’ is what is meant By the “Church” – My understanding is that the Catholic ‘version’ of it is the Pope being the ultimate authority with Scripture / God’s Word being ‘upheld’ as the Pope / church decree it’s reliability.
The Protestant (Baptist) perspective is that Christ is head of the Church. The ‘Church’ consisting of all those who are born-again believers. And I use the term ‘born-again’ believers because not all people who ‘believe’ in God are ‘born-again’ Meaning that they have only been born Physically but Not Spiritually.

So - do we have a ‘book’ religion? Yes – because our ‘book’ Is God’s Word – it’s inspired. The ‘book’ tells of the beginning of the Jewish belief system. Jesus was born a Jewish person. The ‘book’ gives us prophesies about the coming birth of Jesus and it’s accomplishment in Luke – His Birth - Mary conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit into a Jewish family. And Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary Until after Mary had given birth to Jesus. But the concept that she remained a virgin isn’t Biblical, either. And there was no reason for her to remain a virgin. There was nothing sinful about her having a normal marriage relationship with Joseph. And Scripture Names some of her other children. That’s found in the NAB / Matthew 1:25 / Matthew 13:55 - 56
And there is the 'Immaculate conception" – apparently that Mary, herself, was immaculate – sinless? Romans 3:23 says that ‘for all have sinned and come short of the glory of Godz’ There is no one righteous, no not one."
Besides, – Mary had two human parents – so how could she be thought of as ‘immaculate’? And ,yes, no doubt about it – she Was picked out specially to be the mother of Jesus. No other person on earth has That distinction.

And Scripture is More than simply of ‘relative’ importance.

I’ve decided that I would rather put my faith in Jesus Christ / the Son of God / Perfect – than in an imperfect person – “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” applies to All human beings.

So – have a Merry Christmas, ya’ll – that’s a week from yesterday

 

[Gigglin4God]

Hello. I hope you all are well. I got this today off of Pastor Greg Laurie’s Facebook page. Got those who don’t know of Pastor Laurie, he is a Protestant Minister from Harvest Ministries. He is a very good man.

" I have heard people say that it isn’t important to believe in the virgin birthof Jesusaslong asyou believe in His death and resurrection. But I beg to differ. If you doubt the Virgin Birth, then you doubt the Word of God. If you doubt the Virgin Birth, then you are actually saying that Mary was an immoral woman who conceived Jesus out of wedlock.

If you doubt the Virgin Birth, then you doubt the character of Jesus. If Jesus had not been born of a Virgin, then He would have been a mere man with no ability to atone for our sins. If there was no Virgin Birth, then there was no sinless Christ. If there was no sinless Christ, then there was no atonement. If there was no atonement, then there is no forgiveness. If there is no forgiveness, then there is no hope of heaven. If you take away the Virgin Birth, you lose everything.

So don’t tell me the Virgin Birth is an optional belief. It is essential that we believe the Word of God when it says that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was supernaturally conceived in Mary’s womb. The Lord Jesus was born of a Virgin, He lived, and He voluntarily went to a cross and died for the sins of the world. Then He rose again.

When Mary and Joseph dedicated Jesus in the temple, Simeon said, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will bespoken against” (Luke 2:34). We either believein Jesus,or we rejectHim.

Gabriel’s announcement to Mary introduced the pivotal point in redemptive history. How people respond to the Child whom Gabriel spoke of will determine their eternal destinies. _

 

[crochet_lady]

Gigglin4God #118

Excellent post

 

[Muzhik]

hi everyone.

i still seem to be struggling with mary.

i have no problem asking for her intercession, i think i understand and believe all the marian doctrines and how they fit in with Jesus.

but the problem i’m having is, have we maybe gone a little too far?

here is a page of marian prayers.

marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm

i know we don’t worship her but with some of these, the line really seems to be blurred. our life, hope and sweetness. devoting our entire selves to her, obtain for us salvation, EtC.

i don’t know, i’m just really having some issues with this. i feel like maybe some of it has gone a little too far.

and the bible is really not much help on this, Jesus is relatively silent on his mother, doesn’t really honour much in scripture with a ton of illustrious titles. i have heard a ton of protestant accusations on this and i have to admit, it’s a little hard to defend.

has anyone else ever had issues with this? thanks

I find I’ve been spending more time over the past few years meditating on the Royal role of Jesus. Many, many traditions and actions in the Catholic Church can trace their beginnings to this understanding of Jesus as King. (In fact, I sometimes think many Protestant denominations have come to believe in Jesus not as Divine King, but as the Divine CEO; and since they’re sitting on their Church Board they get to vote on doctrine! In fact, I think some of these churches have voted the CEO off the board, but that’s a topic for another rant.)

So not only IS Jesus King, He WAS king, crowned by a foreign leader (Pilate) and hailed as such by the Roman soldiers, and declared to be so (again by Pilate) in the notice written above Jesus’ head while on the cross. And He WILL BE King when He returns, the Son of David, heir to the Davidic Throne. So what was one of the characteristics of a king (both in Israel and in the surrounding kingdoms)? When one measure of the power of a king was the number of his wives and concubines he could support, the king could name his successor from any one of his male children. So instead of having a Queen per se, the king would have a Queen Mother: in Hebrew, gebirah.

In scripture, when reading the histories of the Israelite kings, you see that the king is always listed with his mother (or sometimes, his grandmother). The role of *gebirah *was extremely important at the time, both inside and outside of Israel. If you presented yourself before the king without being called before him, you would be executed on the spot. You see a good example of this in the movie “One Night With The King” (WONDERFUL movie if you like costume dramas!). It’s the story of Esther and the feast of Purim. Esther came before the king uninvited – her husband! – knowing that it meant her death. She was saved only when the king touched her with his scepter: the rod, the staff that the king holds in his right hand. It is with this staff that the king executes judgement. (More on that later…)

Note that his wife could not come before him without being invited. ONLY GEBIRAH, his mother, has that authority! What’s more, she also has the power that, whatever, and I mean whatever she asks of the king, he must grant her.

Mary is Gebirah, the mother of the Davidic King Jesus. His sacrifice on the cross eliminated the need to go through someone to present our needs and requests to Him, but the role has not been eliminated! Whatever she asks of Him, if it is in the will of the Father, He must grant. You can see an example of this in John 2:1, the Wedding at Cana. When Mary pointed out that the couple had run out of wine, Jesus respectfully told her that His time had not yet come. (What is literally translated as “Woman” is better translated today as “Honored Lady”.) Yet as King, He could not refuse this request of His Mother. Mary still holds this power and authority, and yes, it is Biblical.

 

[Dorothy]

Hello. I hope you all are well. I got this today off of Pastor Greg Laurie’s Facebook page. Got those who don’t know of Pastor Laurie, he is a Protestant Minister from Harvest Ministries. He is a very good man.

" I have heard people say that it isn’t important to believe in the virgin birthof Jesusaslong asyou believe in His death and resurrection. But I beg to differ. If you doubt the Virgin Birth, then you doubt the Word of God. If you doubt the Virgin Birth, then you are actually saying that Mary was an immoral woman who conceived Jesus out of wedlock.

If you doubt the Virgin Birth, then you doubt the character of Jesus. If Jesus had not been born of a Virgin, then He would have been a mere man with no ability to atone for our sins. If there was no Virgin Birth, then there was no sinless Christ. If there was no sinless Christ, then there was no atonement. If there was no atonement, then there is no forgiveness. If there is no forgiveness, then there is no hope of heaven. If you take away the Virgin Birth, you lose everything.

So don’t tell me the Virgin Birth is an optional belief. It is essential that we believe the Word of God when it says that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was supernaturally conceived in Mary’s womb. The Lord Jesus was born of a Virgin, He lived, and He voluntarily went to a cross and died for the sins of the world. Then He rose again.

When Mary and Joseph dedicated Jesus in the temple, Simeon said, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will bespoken against” (Luke 2:34). We either believein Jesus,or we rejectHim.

Gabriel’s announcement to Mary introduced the pivotal point in redemptive history. How people respond to the Child whom Gabriel spoke of will determine their eternal destinies. _

I pray that someday Pastor Greg Laurie will accept the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother. Scripture translations that cause confusion need to be clarified to some Catholics as well.

Thanks be to the Lord for His divinely appointed Magisterium!!!

What he has written about the Virgin Birth is wonderful!

 

[harlen]

goya – you’ve been waiting for a response from me – well – there’s been a lot going on in my world lately. Obviously there’s a difference of beliefs between myself and the Catholic church…
But - back to your comments "If Jesus intended to form a 'book religion or a faith community and the relative importance of Scripture "
It is through faith in Jesus Christ that we Have a ‘faith’ community. And That is based on Scripture. And Scripture IS God’s Word. …

So - do we have a ‘book’ religion? Yes – because our ‘book’ Is God’s Word – it’s inspired…

So – have a Merry Christmas, ya’ll – that’s a week from yesterday

I was me (Harlen) actually who posed the questions about whether Jesus started a faith community or a “book-religion”
You seem to have opted for the startling conclusion that He intended something book-based!
Then why didn’t he write a book? (As Mohamed did for instance)
Why didn’t he instruct His Disciples to “Go, & write”?
Why didn’t he build a printing press first?

You seem to take the book “as-a-given”. It then causes faith and this faith causes a community.
But historically that is not how it happened.
Most of the Protestant scholars who become Catholic do so because of study of the early Church and the realisation that Christ founded a visible church… and that that church was, and is,The Catholic Church. 300 years later that Church gave a a new collection (and selection) of scriptures which (on the Catholic Bishops Authority) they called their “Library” (or “Bible”).
There is no single book.
The “new testament” writings come from the Church and
Most of the New Testament epistles for instance show no self-awareness that they are writing “scripture” rather than just dealing with the issues of the moment. It is only the later Catholic Bishops who declared them to be inspired in some way and put them into their bible.
If you don’t accept the innerant authority of the catholic bishops councils of Carthage… to add these various selected writings to a lot of Jewish scriptures and bind it into one “Library”(“Bible”) you are on your own. Do you use the “gospels” of Thomas or Peter that were rejected by the Bishops? f not, why not?
You say “scripture is the Word of God”. How do you Know?
How do you decide which of the many scriptures available to the early were “the word of God”?
Why take the Catholic Bishops selection as innerantly guided by God?
The Bible nowhere refers to itself because it is the Catholic Church’s collection of various literatures. That is why *the bible itself *has no Table of Contents! Those are added by the Selectioneers
It is not fair to pick up this so-called single “book” in the 16th century (because the printing press made it available) and make it the basis of hundreds of new religions without first understanding what it is.

“Book, causes faith, causes community”…has other problems. It is back to front.
Jesus inspired faith without a book and so did his apostles and disciples.
It was the community that inspired faith (“How they love one another”) in Jesus.
Jesus is alive in this community and in their Eucharist. It is this Living Jesus that inspires faith. This faith only “refers back to” its ancestral literature. So The Bible is our reference book, our touchstone, our family history. It tells us who we are, where we come from and where we are going. It is not a new way to bind those freed in the Spirit into a new dead-letter that replaces the dead letter of the Jewish Law.

The Trinity is not in The Bible. It is a Doctrine of the early Catholic Church. Why accept this doctrine and not other doctrines of this Church Like The Assumption, or the Title “Mother-of-God”?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I was me (Harlen) actually who posed the questions about whether Jesus started a faith community or a “book-religion”
You seem to have opted for the startling conclusion that He intended something book-based!
Then why didn’t he write a book? (As Mohamed did for instance)
Why didn’t he instruct His Disciples to “Go, & write”?
Why didn’t he build a printing press first?

I know this thread is drifting AGAIN off topic, but I just want to clarify your point about Mohammed. (Although the comparison is good in more ways than one) Mohammed never wrote anything down either. It was his disciples that assembled all of his sayings into the Koran after his death.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And it hasn’t been on the basis of one man’s ideas that the 7 Apocraphal books have been kept or deleted.

I agree. But the 7 Deuterocanonical books have been deleted because of the beliefs of, not one, but multiple men.

 

[Goya]

goya – you’ve been waiting for a response from me – well – there’s been a lot going on in my world lately. Obviously there’s a difference of beliefs between myself and the Catholic church.

And it hasn’t been on the basis of one man’s ideas that the 7 Apocraphal books have been kept or deleted.

But - b***ack to your comments "If Jesus intended to form a 'book religion or a faith community and the relative importance of Scripture " ***
…

That wasn’t the question I posed; mine was a bit more ‘involved’.

No worries…for now anyways…my question is off topic, and the thread has already received a warning about staying on topic…so…

Let us continue discussing the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Mr_Clean]

In response to the op I too had and sometimes still do have Mary issues. I remember the first time I heard the Rosary at my brother-in-laws funeral. It made the hairs on my neck stand up. Fast forward many years now I’m a catholic convert and I still have an occasional raised eyebrow. I guess as time passess and I learn more truths taught by the Church it continues to make more sense to me. I love the way it was put earlier by someone in this thread that Mary wasn’t just a good Jewish girl - its a little more complicated than that.

I just wanted to bring up one thing I learned here that has caught my attention. Its interesting that 666 when mentioned in the OT and NT involves money in some way. Somebody here said the current protestant bibles only have “66” books because of a money issue. I always did love a conspiracy.

Keep searching doubters - seek and you shall find.

God bless