What Church Is Most Biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GerardPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Holy Scriptures contain 66 books, no more and no less. The apocrypha contains very useful information regarding the Jews and such but was not inteded to be canonized. Tese books contain countless errors. I can point them out for you if you so like. I am NOT too lazy to do that for you.
“Eventually, some Jews rejected the Septuagint in favor of another Greek translation before, ultimately, rejecting any Greek translation as authoratative. The Hebrew text of the Hebrew bible would not be fully stabilized until the work of a group of Jewish scribes, the Masoretes, in the early Middle Ages; this became known as the MasoreticText. In addition to finally fixing the text, they added the vowels, (Hebrew does not use seperate letters to indicate vowels), divisions, punctuations, and musical notations that govern the liturgical readings of the Torah.”

Creating Judasim–History, Tradition, Practice by Michael L. Satlow
by Michael L. Satlow - Satlow is an editor of Brown Judaic Studies and chair of the History and Literature of Rabbinic Judaism section of the Society of Biblical Literature, and previously taught at Indiana University, the University of Virginia and the University of Cincinnati before arriving at Brown in 2002.

The Peshitto
The earliest manuscript of this Syriac Vulgate is a Pentateuch dated A.D. 464; this is the earliest dated Biblical manuscripts; it is in the British Museum. There are two New Testament manuscripts of the fifth century. In all, the Peshitto manuscripts number 125 of Gospels, 58 of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, and 67 of the Pauline Epistles.
newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm

Samaritan Pentateuch - On the return from the Exile, the Jews refused the Samaritans participation with them in the worship at Jerusalem, and the latter separated from all fellowship with them, and built a temple for themselves on Mount Gerizim. This temple was razed to the ground more than one hundred years B.C. Then a system of worship was instituted similar to that of the temple at Jerusalem. It was founded on the Law, copies of which had been multiplied in Israel as well as in Judah. Thus the Pentateuch was preserved among the Samaritans, although they never called it by this name, but always “the Law,” which they read as one book. The division into five books, as we now have it, however, was adopted by the Samaritans, as it was by the Jews, in all their priests’ copies of “the Law,” for the sake of convenience. This was the only portion of the Old Testament which was accepted by the Samaritans as of divine authority.

The form of the letters in the manuscript copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch is different from that of the Hebrew copies, and is probably the same as that which was in general use before the Captivity. There are other peculiarities in the writing which need not here be specified.

There are important differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. In about two thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the LXX. agrees with the former. The New Testament also, when quoting from the Old Testament, agrees as a rule with the Samaritan text, where that differs from the Jewish. Thus Ex. 12:40 in the Samaritan reads, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years” (comp. Gal. 3:17). It may be noted that the LXX. has the same reading of this text htmlbible.com/kjv30/easton/east3203.htm
 
The Holy Scriptures contain 66 books, no more and no less. The apocrypha contains very useful information regarding the Jews and such but was not inteded to be canonized. Tese books contain countless errors. I can point them out for you if you so like. I am NOT too lazy to do that for you.
It has been carefully pointed out with credible references, that this has not been the case for 1500 years until Martin Luther came along. You have rejected every piece of evidence, and then you say “prove it.” I say you prove to me that there was belief in an Apocrypha before Martin Luther in the CHRISTIAN Church. That the Deuterocanonicals were not included in the books of the Bible as Divinely inspired.

Thank you.
 
It has been carefully pointed out with credible references, that this has not been the case for 1500 years until Martin Luther came along. You have rejected every piece of evidence, and then you say “prove it.” I say you prove to me that there was belief in an Apocrypha before Martin Luther in the CHRISTIAN Church. That the Deuterocanonicals were not included in the books of the Bible as Divinely inspired.

Thank you.
The early church fathers did not consider the apocrypha as canonized Scripture. 66 books. The book of Ester was almost not considered Scripture by the Council.
 
Is it really necessary to use insults? I thought we talked about this.
If you check out Manny’s posts, you will see they contain carefully thought out and researched information, in a summarized form. He spends a lot of time researching credible sources to help ALL of us understand the teachings of the Catholic Christian Church. I believe any response to his posts should be in kind.

I find many of the replies to his posts as flippant one-liners, which indicate that they have been neither thoroughly read, nor his sources researched. Many of the responses were just “repeat what I believe. The end, no more no less.”

I believe the LEAST one could do is consider his sincerity, and answer thoughtfully with any disagreements. This is the first time I have seen him make a personal remark. Give him a break. He is right. And Brew, you could take a lesson in not insulting the Catholic Christian Church. We will defend ourselves, but with respect and truth.
 
The early church fathers did not consider the apocrypha as canonized Scripture. 66 books. The book of Ester was almost not considered Scripture by the Council.
Prove it to me. Also, give me a list of whom you consider ECF. To which Council are you referring? Thank you.
 
If you check out Manny’s posts, you will see they contain carefully thought out and researched information, in a summarized form. He spends a lot of time researching credible sources to help ALL of us understand the teachings of the Catholic Christian Church. I believe any response to his posts should be in kind.

I find many of the replies to his posts as flippant one-liners, which indicate that they have been neither thoroughly read, nor his sources researched. Many of the responses were just “repeat what I believe. The end, no more no less.”

I believe the LEAST one could do is consider his sincerity, and answer thoughtfully with any disagreements. This is the first time I have seen him make a personal remark. Give him a break. He is right. And Brew, you could take a lesson in not insulting the Catholic Christian Church. We will defend ourselves, but with respect and truth.
What? He insults Protestants and anyone who disagrees with him. He asks the same redundant pointed question to merely propagate more arguing and more opportunities to bestow his great Catholic knowledge upon us(not). Honestly, just about any Catholic that I have seen on here that speaks indepthly on issues is seemingly far sharper than him. I do not mean that as an insult.
 
What? He insults Protestants and anyone who disagrees with him. He asks the same redundant pointed question to merely propagate more arguing and more opportunities to bestow his great Catholic knowledge upon us(not). Honestly, just about any Catholic that I have seen on here that speaks indepthly on issues is seemingly far sharper than him. I do not mean that as an insult.
I do not agree with you that he is insulting. He is well researched. Please do not leave the Church of TRUTH for a Church of convenience. You will never be at peace, although you might rationalize your way through.
 
What? He insults Protestants and anyone who disagrees with him. He asks the same redundant pointed question to merely propagate more arguing and more opportunities to bestow his great Catholic knowledge upon us(not). Honestly, just about any Catholic that I have seen on here that speaks indepthly on issues is seemingly far sharper than him. I do not mean that as an insult.
Actually, I think you are the first I have ever seen him insult at all.

Maybe not:shrug: , but it has been such a long time, that I can’t even remember.

However, in perusing the responses, or lack thereof you have to his in depth post, maybe his words should not be classified as an insult.
 
The early church fathers did not consider the apocrypha as canonized Scripture. 66 books. The book of Ester was almost not considered Scripture by the Council.
The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1
Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2
Luke 6:31 Tobit 4
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4
Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15
Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7

The Maccabean Revolt began in 168-167 B.C. when the Romans expelled Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt, a man who began to vent his rage upon the Jews. He massacred vast numbers of Jews on their Sabbath day, took many captive, erected a fortress on Mt. Zion, and attempted to abolish all vestiges of Jewish worship and practice. The Temple was dedicated to the false god Zeus, and upon the newly erected altar a pig was sacrificed! (The apocryphal book of Maccabees, apparently quoting Daniel 11:31, calls this act the “abomination of desolation.”) heraldmag.org/2002/02so_7.htm

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination

the first Bible printed in America was done in the native Algonquin Indian Language by John Eliot in 1663

s8int.com/bibletimeline.html

Many people ask why the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church has more books in it than the typical Protestant Bible. These “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books are Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Judith, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and additional chapters of Daniel and Esther. The most religiously important of the books are Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the most historically important is 1st Maccabees.

The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not. apostate.com/2.0/english-bible-versions
 
I do not agree with you that he is insulting. He is well researched. Please do not leave the Church of TRUTH for a Church of convenience. You will never be at peace, although you might rationalize your way through.
The Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest pagan and politial origins: To destroy the true Christians and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture instead of using the preserved prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). That is why the Alexandrian writings called the apocrypha were added as well. I have tried to be cordial, but the truth must be told. enough is enough.
 
The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1
Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2
Luke 6:31 Tobit 4
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4
Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15
Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7

The Maccabean Revolt began in 168-167 B.C. when the Romans expelled Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt, a man who began to vent his rage upon the Jews. He massacred vast numbers of Jews on their Sabbath day, took many captive, erected a fortress on Mt. Zion, and attempted to abolish all vestiges of Jewish worship and practice. The Temple was dedicated to the false god Zeus, and upon the newly erected altar a pig was sacrificed! (The apocryphal book of Maccabees, apparently quoting Daniel 11:31, calls this act the “abomination of desolation.”) heraldmag.org/2002/02so_7.htm

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination

the first Bible printed in America was done in the native Algonquin Indian Language by John Eliot in 1663

s8int.com/bibletimeline.html

Many people ask why the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church has more books in it than the typical Protestant Bible. These “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books are Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Judith, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and additional chapters of Daniel and Esther. The most religiously important of the books are Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the most historically important is 1st Maccabees.

The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not. apostate.com/2.0/english-bible-versions
Another example of laborious research which PLEASE requires point by point replies, and not just “this is what I believe” and everybody else (especialy Catholics) is wrong.
 
The Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest pagan and politial origins: To destroy the true Christians and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture instead of using the preserved prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). That is why the Alexandrian writings called the apocrypha were added as well. I have tried to be cordial, but the truth must be told. enough is enough.
You cannot be truly researched and Christian and believe this is true.
Have not many witnesses come forth on this Forum to attest to Truth?
 
The Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest pagan and politial origins: To destroy the true Christians and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture instead of using the preserved prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). That is why the Alexandrian writings called the apocrypha were added as well. I have tried to be cordial, but the truth must be told. enough is enough.
I don’t know where you got this"aim" but it is NOT true. Please do not fall for this Heresy. Research in honesty and integrity.
 
What? He insults Protestants and anyone who disagrees with him. He asks the same redundant pointed question to merely propagate more arguing and more opportunities to bestow his great Catholic knowledge upon us(not). Honestly, just about any Catholic that I have seen on here that speaks indepthly on issues is seemingly far sharper than him. I do not mean that as an insult.
If I insulted Protestants in anyway that was not my full intension, I apologize. I want** Protestants to realize the errors of their ways**. Yes, they can disagree but they ought to look at the Catholic understanding and less be objective and call our belief un-Biblical. I think for the most part Catholics here pointed that Protestantism which stem out of the Protestant Reformation is a departure from the truth, hence the Reformers broke away from the Household of God, the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. The Church upholds the Truth, which is Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I also like to add, the lack of Protestants to investigate historical Christianity. The true is this, the Catholic Church played a major role in the development of Christian theology, particularly in its role for defining the Trinity, combating Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Donatism, etc.

The Early Church following the death of the last Apostle continue this line of Apostolic Succession. From them come the first generation of Christians. Amongst these are well know Christian leaders.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Symra, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Papias. St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp were disciples of John, the Apostle. St. Clement of Rome personally knew Peter and were ordained by Peter as bishop. St. Papias was a hearer of Barnabas.

These Apostolic Fathers had the core beliefs founded in Catholicism, Real Presence, the sacrifice of the Mass, etc. The historical Christianity is founded only in Catholicism. Protestantism, a tradition founded by Martin Luther is a departure from the truth in the 1517 and thereafter. It lacks any form of succession dating to the time of the Apostle. From his theology Martin Luther and others Reform Leaders, had turn to somewhat a gnostic view by denying that God’s grace cannot work through the Seven Sacrament of the Church. Since Gnosticism view material things as evil.

Rather Protestantism rely on Faith Alone and Scriptura Alone doctrines completely foreign to Early Church, and claim that the individual Christian can interpret the Bible himself. They took away the sacrifice of the Mass, and added new doctrines like OSAS, Symbolism of Eucharist, Rapture Theory, etc. None of these are even founded in Scripture and Christian Tradition. Rather these new doctrines are brought forth by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by so called pastors who think they can interpret the Bible.

There are of course Protestants in here who have taken the time to look at historical Christianity. That is good and have an open mind. I also like to point out the continued fragmentation of Protestantism is a proof the errors of their doctrines. To me, correct if I’m wrong, the doctrine of Bible Alone makes a man, his own magisterium.
 
The Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest pagan and politial origins: To destroy the true Christians and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture instead of using the preserved prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). That is why the Alexandrian writings called the apocrypha were added as well. I have tried to be cordial, but the truth must be told. enough is enough.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You claim its origins is paganism. No historian would agree with you. This is false history. There is no evidence to prove your claims to be true. The Apostles did not call them Apocrypha. The Deutrocanonical Books were written by Jewish Scholars. They were never added. The Council of Jamnia in 90 AD rejected the Deutrocanonical Books because they were not written in Hebrew. This is what I refer to as the “error of their ways.”

The council also denied the Jesus as the True Messiah.
 
120 CE? Care to prove that. The protoevangelium never directly states she remained a virgin, you know that.

What idea? What specific historical belief does the Protoevangelium support? Give an exact quote.
Prove that it was 120 AD? Hey, I will even give you to the first ECF in around 238.

The question is why do you accept the idea that sprung up after the reformation about Mary’s perpetual virginity, a relatively new idea in Christianity, not recorded anywhere until over 1500 years, instead of one that is recorded within several hundred years of Christianity? Mary having other children is quite new, yet you seem to embrace it, reasoning that it was a couple hundred years before her perpetual virginity was espoused.

Respectfully, if you were going to be intellectually honest about this, you would claim that it is too difficult to tell whether or not Mary remained a virgin because not enough information EITHER direction was forthcoming for too long.

Instead, you seem to have two separate standards for accepting things. The “general consensus” that Mary had other children is accepted by you, yet this theory only sprung up in christianity in the last 200 years. But you don’t accept the perpetual viginity because it took 200 years to be written about?

You seem to pride yourself on intellectual honesty, and so I hope you confront yourself on this issue, and see that you are using a separate standard to decide what is true and what isn’t. One standard for the “general consensus” and one for the Catholic Church.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
If I insulted Protestants in anyway that was not my full intension, I apologize. I want** Protestants to realize the errors of their ways**. Yes, they can disagree but they ought to look at the Catholic understanding and less be objective and call our belief un-Biblical. I think for the most part Catholics here pointed that Protestantism which stem out of the Protestant Reformation is a departure from the truth, hence the Reformers broke away from the Household of God, the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. The Church upholds the Truth, which is Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I also like to add, the lack of Protestants to investigate historical Christianity. The true is this, the Catholic Church played a major role in the development of Christian theology, particularly in its role for defining the Trinity, combating Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Donatism, etc.

The Early Church following the death of the last Apostle continue this line of Apostolic Succession. From them come the first generation of Christians. Amongst these are well know Christian leaders.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Symra, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Papias. St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp were disciples of John, the Apostle. St. Clement of Rome personally knew Peter and were ordained by Peter as bishop. St. Papias was a hearer of Barnabas.

These Apostolic Fathers had the core beliefs founded in Catholicism, Real Presence, the sacrifice of the Mass, etc. The historical Christianity is founded only in Catholicism. Protestantism, a tradition founded by Martin Luther is a departure from the truth in the 1517 and thereafter. It lacks any form of succession dating to the time of the Apostle. From his theology Martin Luther and others Reform Leaders, had turn to somewhat a gnostic view by denying that God’s grace cannot work through the Seven Sacrament of the Church. Since Gnosticism view material things as evil.

Rather Protestantism rely on Faith Alone and Scriptura Alone doctrines completely foreign to Early Church, and claim that the individual Christian can interpret the Bible himself. They took away the sacrifice of the Mass, and added new doctrines like OSAS, Symbolism of Eucharist, Rapture Theory, etc. None of these are even founded in Scripture and Christian Tradition. Rather these new doctrines are brought forth by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by so called pastors who think they can interpret the Bible.

There are of course Protestants in here who have taken the time to look at historical Christianity. That is good and have an open mind. I also like to point out the continued fragmentation of Protestantism is a proof the errors of their doctrines. To me, correct if I’m wrong, the doctrine of Bible Alone makes a man, his own magisterium.
The problem here is that many if not all Protestants do attest that many Catholics beliefs are un-Biblical. This Is because they are indeed not Biblical! Prove by using Scripture the Assumption of Mary into Heaven body and soul, the Immaculate Conception and the notion that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
 
II also like to add, the lack of Protestants to investigate historical Christianity. The true is this, the Catholic Church played a major role in the development of Christian theology, particularly in its role for defining the Trinity, combating Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Donatism, etc.
In addition to preserving the Bible during the Dark Ages, copying by monks, preserving it from the Barbarians, translating it into the common language so that ALL might have access to it.
 
The problem here is that many if not all Protestants do attest that many Catholics beliefs are un-Biblical. This Is because they are indeed not Biblical! Prove by using Scripture the Assumption of Mary into Heaven body and soul, the Immaculate Conception and the notion that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but no details are given, and they are assumed to be in the Oral Torah. Although observing Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, no details are given as to how it should be kept, and these are also in the unwritten tradition. God thus said, “You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers” (Jeremiah 17:22).
aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Oral_Tradition.asp

Sent: 10/3/2007 8:32 PM Shalom-שלום_אתם Message 33 of 311

From:Shalom
While Torah is silent on the details it is loud on telling Israel that they should judge for itself how to implement the commandments. Moses delegated, there was a time we had Judges, Sannhedrin etc.

Here You Go Brew - How to keep Shabbat is Man-Made not in the bible

And Where is it recorded in the TORAH - Moses delegated his authority to the Sannhedrin ? Nowhere I know

While Bible is silent on the details it is loud on telling Catholics that they should judge for itself how to implement the Christs Teaching. Jesus delegated, there was a time we had Apostles, Churches etc.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Many Catholics have heard that “kepha” is used in both places in this verse ("You are Peter [kepha] and on this rock [kepha] I will build my Church . . . "), but few have seen it with their own eyes.

So here 'tis:
jimmyakin.org/2005/04/while_were_at_i.html

Sent:10/4/2007 12:23 PM From:Shalom-שלום_אתם Message 63 of 311
I didn’t say Moses delegated authority to the Sanhedrin. Setting up governing bodies is one of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) given to Israel. Under the advice of his father in law Yitro (Jethro in English) Moses assigned governance over the tribes. He later appointed Joshua, but even so, once Torah was given, Israel knew they had to appoint governing bodies. Governance took the form of Judges, Kings (bad choice) and Sanhedrin at different periods in our history.
 
The problem here is that many if not all Protestants do attest that many Catholics beliefs are un-Biblical. This Is because they are indeed not Biblical! Prove by using Scripture the Assumption of Mary into Heaven body and soul, the Immaculate Conception and the notion that Mary remained a irgin her whole life.
Rev 12:1 the woman appeared in heaven clothed with the sun. The woman gave birth to male-child who will rule all nations with an iron rod. This male child was taken up to God and to his throne.

Individually speaking, the male-child is Jesus. The woman can be identified as Mary, the Mother of Jesus. The passage also said the woman appeared in heaven. How she got there, is that she assumed.

The Immaculate Conception has its basis on the Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

When Gabriel appears to Mary at the Annunciation, he did not call her Mary. Instead, he says “Hail, full of grace” (Luke 1:28). The phrase full of grace comes from the Greek word, kecharitomene) means that Mary received a complete and perfect endowment of grace from God. Only one other person in Scripture is describe “full of grace,” and that person is Jesus Christ. Remember also that it was God who first gave this title to Mary since the angel is a messenger of God.

This perfection of grace that Mary had already received is called the Immaculate Conception. The Church has always taught that Mary was redeemed from the moment of her conception, that she might fulfill the unique role of bearing God’s Word in her womb.

Mary’s sinless conception was solely due to the merits of Jesus Christ’s future death and Resurrection… God applied the merit of Christ in advance to Mary. God did not allow Mary to step into the pit of sin. Mary likewise said, "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top