The Virgin Mary

[justasking4]

jmcrae;2742068]The Apostles had no New Testament Scriptures to refer to. It hadn’t been written yet.

Parts of it evidently were since Peter equates the writings of Paul with Scripture when he writes in 2 Peter 3:–
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

“These things are written” is referring to the Old Testament, since that was the only Scripture that had yet been written down.

Do you have the reference for this?

 

[Ginger2]

Not only 2 Peter 3:, but also John 20:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31 But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

 

[jmcrae]

Huh? Do you have a couple of examples of this?

For example the parable of the sheep and the goats that we find in Matthew 25 is often explained away as “differing rewards” when certain Protestants try to shoe-horn it into their understanding of Paul’s writings on faith, from which they derive a “faith alone” philosophy.

Obviously, Jesus is making it very plain in that parable that faith alone cannot save - that obedience is the essence of saving faith - but there are Protestants who refuse to see the obvious, because they are so adamant that St. Paul teaches “faith alone.” (He doesn’t teach anything of the sort, of course, but it is easy to become confused if you just pull a few verses out here and there, while ignoring even St. Paul’s call to the Sacraments and to the Christian life of service.)

 

[Ginger2]

According to my Catholic Bible - the one approved for teaching by the Pope.

The Gospel of Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD before 2 Peter which is dated 66-67 AD and Acts in 63 AD

1 Cor in 57 AD was also written before 2 Peter & Acts .

It is obvious the Christians of that time had access to NT writings .

 

[jmcrae]

Not only 2 Peter 3:, but also John 20:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31 But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

Okay. Thanks!!

 

[jmcrae]

According to my Catholic Bible - the one approved for teaching by the Pope.

The Gospel of Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD before 2 Peter which is dated 66-67 AD and Acts in 63 AD

1 Cor in 57 AD was also written before 2 Peter & Acts .

It is obvious the Christians of that time had access to NT writings .

So, from 33 AD to 57 AD, there was actually nothing in writing for the Apostles to refer to, other than the Old Testament, right?

Yet, they converted the whole southern part of Europe (at least Greece, Italy and Spain), parts of Asia, and parts of Northern Africa within that space of time. Obviously, they weren’t just handing out Bibles - right?

 

[japhy]

The Gospel of Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD before 2 Peter which is dated 66-67 AD and Acts in 63 AD

1 Cor in 57 AD was also written before 2 Peter & Acts .

It is obvious the Christians of that time had access to NT writings .

How did Christians have access to these writings? It takes time to copy things. And there’s no guarantee letters to individual churches were copied immediately either.

 

[Ginger2]

That is not necessarily true. The books and letters being written were completed by these dates. They or parts of them, may have been in circulation earlier.

However, the point is that the Apostles wrote down their testimonies as eyewitnesses to Christ Jesus. And they affirmed each others writings as inspired. And in books written later, ACTS 3:16 says it is all inspired and useful for teaching and rebuking.

The point is that Catholics do not include NT writings in the prohibition of “what was written”

They say that only applies to the OT. But the Apostles make clear that they are also speaking of their writings.

 

[justasking4]

For example the parable of the sheep and the goats that we find in Matthew 25 is often explained away as “differing rewards” when certain Protestants try to shoe-horn it into their understanding of Paul’s writings on faith, from which they derive a “faith alone” philosophy.

Obviously, Jesus is making it very plain in that parable that faith alone cannot save - that obedience is the essence of saving faith - but there are Protestants who refuse to see the obvious, because they are so adamant that St. Paul teaches “faith alone.” (He doesn’t teach anything of the sort, of course, but it is easy to become confused if you just pull a few verses out here and there, while ignoring even St. Paul’s call to the Sacraments and to the Christian life of service.)

Is the interpretation you give about Matthew 25 above your own interpretation or the offical-infallible interpretation of the catholic church? If it is the offical interpretation of the catholic church can you point me to that source?

 

[justasking4]

Not only 2 Peter 3:, but also John 20:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31 But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

Your right. The things that were “written” was gospel of John itself.

 

[guanophore]

I am responding to the accusation that Scriptures are insufficient

No one is accusing anything, and no one is saying the Scriptures are insufficient.

because everything Jesus ever did and said is not written in them.

Do you disagree with this?

My point is that God has saw to it that everything we need to know is written within the Scriptures.

This is the falsehood. The scriptures were written to lead the readers to faith. Faith will lead the reader to the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Jesus entrusted His message to people. The writings were not meant to be separated from the Apostolic Tradition from which they emerged.

Our salvation is not based upon Mary’s perfection. It is Jesus who brings us salvation.

This is a very narrow minded view of salvation history. Our salvation is based up EVERYTHING that came before, as Jesus said “salvation is from the Jews”. Failure to understand this will limit our understanding of God’s plan.

 

[Ginger2]

Guanophore: “This is the falsehood.” Are you saying the Scriptures are insufficient?

Guanophore: “This is a very narrow minded view of salvation history” Good! I choose the narrow gate.

 

[guanophore]

Jay “none of us would disagree with each other’s scriptural viewpoint.”

There would still be disagreement because of freewill. People like to justify what they do and want. The Bible tells us so.

2 TIMOTHY
4:3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, the will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.,
4:4 …and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.

If you are wondering what translation this is from, it is the JW. I used it to witness to the Witnesses.

This is true, but from Paul’s point of view “healthful teaching” is that which is Apostolic, and is in unity with the Teaching Authority that Christ appointed for the Church.

 

[guanophore]

There was the bodily Assumption of Mary first revealed, and how then was it more fully “understood” centuries later?

This happened in the Eastern Orthodox Churches,and my studies are rather recent of the Orthodox documents. I know that the Dormition was part of the liturgy in the 4th century.

.So you’re now claiming “partial” inspiration of those writing??? That the Spirit co-Authored some parts of them? My O my!

Not at all, although, that may be true. I am saying that there are mentions in the ECF’s to inspired teachings that were later proclaimed dogma, such as the 2 natures of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Yet Luke says he did not. Do you believe Luke or do you believe Paul. Conflicting accounts? Or was Paul just speaking figuratively and/or rhetorically?

Luke only records their first meeting. We don’t know how many times Jesus appeared to Paul, or at what times.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore: “This is the falsehood.” Are you saying the Scriptures are insufficiente

It is false that everything you need to know you will find in the scriptures. Jesus said this to the Jews. They searched the scriptures, and then fell short. Why?

Guanophore: “This is a very narrow minded view of salvation history” Good! I choose the narrow gate.

I am not talking about the narrow path to the pearly gates, beloved. I am talking about the fact that you have shut yourself off from a significant portion of the Divine Revelation.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2743177]No one is accusing anything, and no one is saying the Scriptures are insufficient.

Do you disagree with this?

This is the falsehood. The scriptures were written to lead the readers to faith. Faith will lead the reader to the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Jesus entrusted His message to people. The writings were not meant to be separated from the Apostolic Tradition from which they emerged.

Must a christian believe that Mary was assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, etc to be mature in Christ?

This is a very narrow minded view of salvation history. Our salvation is based up EVERYTHING that came before, as Jesus said “salvation is from the Jews”. Failure to understand this will limit our understanding of God’s plan.

Are the marian dogmas necessary for salvation?

 

[Ginger2]

Well, Guanophore,

I’ve asked many times, "What essential piece of information necessary for our salvation is lacking from the Bible?

I was on a Catholic forum once before. Someone asked, “How does a Catholic know he is saved?” At the time the forum rules did not prohibit Protestants from participation.

I quoted Scriptures to answer his question. A Catholic told me I was wrong. I quoted Scriptures to to affirm and clarify. Another Catholic told me I was wrong. Once again I quoted Scripture. This went on for 2 or 3 days before the man who asked came on and said that my witness made sense and that he prayed asking for forgiveness and turned his life over to God. He said he felt the love of God poor down upon him.

This is the power of God. God’s Holy Word written down in the NT spoke to this man.

The Holy Scriptures are sufficient. There is nothing lacking concerning what we need to know to be saved.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

…some accepted the truth and some denied it. God spoke to those whom He chose to - thru the Scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

Must a christian believe that Mary was assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, etc to be mature in Christ? Are the marian dogmas necessary for salvation?

I am sure God can save whomever He wishes, however He likes. Our duty is to act within the knowledge that has been revealed to us by the HS. For those of us to whom this revelation has been given, yes. To those who are only in posession of part of the revelation, I entrust their fate to a merciful father and pray for the conversion of their souls.

 

[guanophore]

Well, Guanophore,

I’ve asked many times, "What essential piece of information necessary for our salvation is lacking from the Bible?

The Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Authority.

I was on a Catholic forum once before. Someone asked, “How does a Catholic know he is saved?” At the time the forum rules did not prohibit Protestants from participation.

I quoted Scriptures to answer his question. A Catholic told me I was wrong. I quoted Scriptures to to affirm and clarify. Another Catholic told me I was wrong. Once again I quoted Scripture. This went on for 2 or 3 days before the man who asked came on and said that my witness made sense and that he prayed asking for forgiveness and turned his life over to God. He said he felt the love of God poor down upon him.

This is the power of God. God’s Holy Word written down in the NT spoke to this man.

The Holy Scriptures are sufficient. There is nothing lacking concerning what we need to know to be saved.

Well, if you already made up your mind, why did you ask?

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

…some accepted the truth and some denied it. God spoke to those whom He chose to - thru the Scriptures.

Paul used the OT scriptures, since the NT was not yet written. Also, Paul was a Catholic, and taught using the Sacred Oral Tradition. He is a member of the Magesterium, the TEaching Authority appointed by Jesus. These elements were not meant to be separated from the written testimony.