What makes you think the bible is the word of God?

[AnthonyM2]

OK, I still don’t think that has anything to do with being free from sin or the Immaculate Conception.

Because, to be full of God’s grace is to be without sin. So your earlier analogy to supermodels does not apply here, looking graceful has nothing to do with being “full of grace.” The term in the original Greek used in Luke, “kecharitomene” means someone who has been, is and will be graced. Therefore God has blessed her from the begining of her life.

Here is a link to an article in This Rock magazine that explains it more fully. I think there was another such link in an earlier post.

To answer your assertion that this is contradicted by Paul’s statement that “all have sinned,” see specifically item #4 in the linked article. I’ll quote it for you.

"Though Paul is making a generalization of all humanity, Protestants and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of committing actual sin. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been exempt from actual and original sin (Heb. 4:15). If Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can also be made."

 

[Harsalter]

OK, I still don’t think that has anything to do with being free from sin or the Immaculate Conception.

Before one can debate a subject, one must know the subject content and terms. You obviously do not. Of course, this has everything to do with being sin free and without original sin, and the Immaculate Conception.

OK the Church claims to know the truth, and you believe them. But that’s not an objective belief. The bible and tradition COULD be the truth, but have you considered the fact that they might not be the truth? Objective means you don’t care which religion you belong to, but believe it based on the evidence you’ve seen. From what you’ve said it sounds like you just assume anything the Church says is the truth.

Let me try to speak in terms, you may understand. “Dude”, get a clue. Study some history.

 

[lsburk]

I suggest you pick up a copy of “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. He devotes an entire chapter to inspiration of the bible. His writing is easy to read and his logic is easy to follow. I believe you could go to the Catholic Answers website and order a copy. I would loan you mine but it is an autographed copy and I don’t loan books.

 

[lsburk]

OK the Church claims to know the truth, and you believe them. But that’s not an objective belief. The bible and tradition COULD be the truth, but have you considered the fact that they might not be the truth? Objective means you don’t care which religion you belong to, but believe it based on the evidence you’ve seen. From what you’ve said it sounds like you just assume anything the Church says is the truth.

Anything the Church says on the subjects of faith and morals is the truth.

 

[tigers08]

Because, to be full of God’s grace is to be without sin. So your earlier analogy to supermodels does not apply here, looking graceful has nothing to do with being “full of grace.” The term in the original Greek used in Luke, “kecharitomene” means someone who has been, is and will be graced. Therefore God has blessed her from the begining of her life.

OK, so Mary was full of grace her entire life…the word grace doesn’t necessarily mean freedom from sin. That’s what I was saying about models. There are lots of people that are graceful and full of grace. The Church is basing this whole concept almost completely on one phrases, and really one word. Whether you want to translate kecharitomene as “full of grace” or “are-graced” or whatever, this word doesn’t mean “born exempt from original sin and never sinned throughout life”. Look at Acts 6:8. “Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.” Are you saying that because Stephen was full of God’s grace he was born without original sin and never sinned in his life?

 

[tigers08]

Anything the Church says on the subjects of faith and morals is the truth.

That’s fine to believe that, but you can’t say that it’s objective.

 

[tigers08]

Before one can debate a subject, one must know the subject content and terms. You obviously do not. Of course, this has everything to do with being sin free and without original sin, and the Immaculate Conception.

It really doesn’t. Grace doesn’t mean free from sin. Look at the post like 2 or so above this…Acts 6:8 " Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people." Was he immaculately conceived, too?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

It really doesn’t. Grace doesn’t mean free from sin. Look at the post like 2 or so above this…Acts 6:8 " Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people." Was he immaculately conceived, too?

Stephen was full of God’s grace after Christ’s work was done on the cross.

Mary was full of God’s grace before Christ was even born into this world.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am thinking its use of the “word of the LORD” over two hundred times is a hint that it is God’s word.

 

[Harsalter]

It really doesn’t. Grace doesn’t mean free from sin. Look at the post like 2 or so above this…Acts 6:8 " Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people." Was he immaculately conceived, too?

It really does! You may not think it does, but quite frankly, it doesn’t matter what you think. Mary was full of grace and full of God’s favor. She was born sin free and remained a virgin her entire life until she was assumed into heaven as a sin free virgin.

So of course you don’t believe in the apparitions of ‘Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc’? Ever wonder why these apparitions never occur to a Protestant? Maybe because the true Church is actually the true Church Christ instituted, and not a man made Johnny come lately protestant church.

If I was actually wondering if the Bible was truly the word of God and if there was actually a true Church, I would study history, study the early Church Fathers, and take a good look with an open mind at the story and miracles of Mother Mary’s Apparitions, especially of ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe’, Fatima and Lourdes’.

When one does this, they will learn that yes the Bible is truly the word of God, the New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics, and yes the early Church Fathers were Catholic as this is the Church that Christ instituted. Anyone that reads the early Church Fathers and come away with any other belief, they are being as insincere as they can be.

 

[tigers08]

I am thinking its use of the “word of the LORD” over two hundred times is a hint that it is God’s word.

You can’t use the bible’s claim that it is God’s word as proof of that claim. I could write a book and use that phrase a thousand times, that wouldn’t make it true.

 

[tigers08]

So of course you don’t believe in the apparitions of ‘Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc’? Ever wonder why these apparitions never occur to a Protestant? Maybe because the true Church is actually the true Church Christ instituted, and not a man made Johnny come lately protestant church.

No I don’t. The reason they don’t appear to protestants is because they’re not real, and protestants don’t hold Mary in as high of a place, so when they “see” something they don’t associate it with Mary as readily as Catholics. Catholics see Mary in everything, just because they WANT to see her.

If I was actually wondering if the Bible was truly the word of God and if there was actually a true Church, I would study history, study the early Church Fathers, and take a good look with an open mind at the story and miracles of Mother Mary’s Apparitions, especially of ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe’, Fatima and Lourdes’.

I read each of those “miracles”, and honestly they’re not at all impressive. Lady of Lourdes is ONE child’s testimony. Fatima is 3 kids, and Guadalupe is one man.

 

[peary]

What makes me think the Bible is the Word of God?
Because of the Church’s Divine mission on earth, that’s why. The New Testament scriptures is the Church’s early memoirs.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

No I don’t. The reason they don’t appear to protestants is because they’re not real, and protestants don’t hold Mary in as high of a place, so when they “see” something they don’t associate it with Mary as readily as Catholics. Catholics see Mary in everything, just because they WANT to see her.

It’s true, Catholics WANT to see her because she’ll lead us to Jesus.

Protestants DON’T WANT to see her, because she’ll turn their faith upside-down.

Protestants have no choice; They have to deny the marian apparitions. Catholics have a choice; We can accept or deny… and still be Catholic. The power is with us.

I read each of those “miracles”, and honestly they’re not at all impressive. Lady of Lourdes is ONE child’s testimony. Fatima is 3 kids, and Guadalupe is one man.

Three children predicted a miracle for Oct 13th, 1917.
70,000 showed up and saw it!
I don’t get it; How is that not impressive?

 

[colliric]

St. Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.” I agree.

agreed, I like reading the Douay-Rheims a.k.a the Latin Vulgate.

 

[tigers08]

It’s true, Catholics WANT to see her because she’ll lead us to Jesus.

Protestants DON’T WANT to see her, because she’ll turn their faith upside-down.

Protestants have no choice; They have to deny the marian apparitions. Catholics have a choice; We can accept or deny… and still be Catholic. The power is with us.

Catholics want to see Mary like UFO enthusiasts want to see lights in the sky. They see what they want to see, that doesn’t mean it’s real.

Three children predicted a miracle for Oct 13th, 1917.
70,000 showed up and saw it!
I don’t get it; How is that not impressive?

try staring at the sun for a while and you’ll see the same thing

 

[AnthonyM2]

Three children predicted a miracle for Oct 13th, 1917.
70,000 showed up and saw it!
I don’t get it; How is that not impressive?

Exactly! It was not just the word of the individual seers but the signs that accompanied the visions that corrobarated them.

 

[tigers08]

Because of the Church’s Divine mission on earth, that’s why. The New Testament scriptures is the Church’s early memoirs.

OK, then why do you believe the Church?

 

[AnthonyM2]

try staring at the sun for a while and you’ll see the same thing

It was raining that day at Fatima, so the people were not staring at the sun for a while, it came out suddenly and appeared to move around strangley in the sky. There were skeptical observers from the secular newspapers who reported the same thing (which you could find out if you objectively researched the story yourself).

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Catholics want to see Mary like UFO enthusiasts want to see lights in the sky. They see what they want to see, that doesn’t mean it’s real.

try staring at the sun for a while and you’ll see the same thing

I think you’re the one, now, who is seeing things because you want to see it.

And unless you’re now blind, I don’t think you’ve stared at the sun long enough to test out your theory. And I don’t think 70,000 people around you tried to stare at the sun either.