S
sandusky
Guest
I’ve read Webster, Svendson, White, and others.
- Status
C
cazayoux
Guest
For that matter, where does the bible say that it records “all the major issues”?
michel
P
PhilVaz
Guest
sand << I’ve read Webster, Svendson, White, and others. >>
No wonder you are so confused.
Now you gotta read Juniper Carol, Ullathorne, Chapman, and others. My folks answer all your folks, in great detail.
You do realize that Webster, Svendsen, and White are not trained patristic scholars? At least you could have said “I’ve read Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and others.”
Phil P
No wonder you are so confused.
Now you gotta read Juniper Carol, Ullathorne, Chapman, and others. My folks answer all your folks, in great detail.
You do realize that Webster, Svendsen, and White are not trained patristic scholars? At least you could have said “I’ve read Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and others.”
Phil P
S
sandusky
Guest
You’re so predictable Phil. That’s why I love you!sand << I’ve read Webster, Svendson, White, and others. >>
No wonder you are so confused.
Now you gotta read Juniper Carol, Ullathorne, Chapman, and others. My folks answer all your folks, in great detail.
You do realize that Webster, Svendsen, and White are not trained patristic scholars? At least you could have said “I’ve read Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and others.”
Phil P
I’ve read Schaff, and, I’ve bookmarked your link to work through it.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
The Church is Christ’s earthly presents. If you question one you question both. Why do you question Christ? Why do you trust your own understand more than trusting Christ and his Church?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
sand << You’re so predictable Phil. That’s why I love you! >>
How old are you? I think it would be fun talking with you on the phone since I probably know Webster, Svendsen, and White better than most (most Catholics at least). Oh I’ve “followed their careers” and their “arguments” since about 1992. Well 91 or 92 for White, 92 for Webster, 96 for Svendsen (White’s old “sola scriptura” list). Yeah I got all their books and have known their stuff even before I was on the Internet.
Predictable? Well I’ll always link to myself when I can, especially when its on topic. I have a lot of stuff on my site.
Phil P
How old are you? I think it would be fun talking with you on the phone since I probably know Webster, Svendsen, and White better than most (most Catholics at least). Oh I’ve “followed their careers” and their “arguments” since about 1992. Well 91 or 92 for White, 92 for Webster, 96 for Svendsen (White’s old “sola scriptura” list). Yeah I got all their books and have known their stuff even before I was on the Internet.
Predictable? Well I’ll always link to myself when I can, especially when its on topic. I have a lot of stuff on my site.
Phil P
A
AlegreFe
Guest
The teaching that Mary is sinless is in God’s Word and that is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ established a Church for us here on earth because He did not want to leave us orphins.
There are many things that are not in God’s written word, but Mary’s sinlessness is indeed in God’s written word, you just can’t or don’t want to see it. So all I can do is pray that God will open your eyes so that you can see all of Truth whether written or orally passed on in Sacred Tradition.
Anyone who seriously knows Jesus Christ can see ALL of Truth that is in the Deposit of Faith. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ cannot be limited to written words in a book. Jesus left us a Church that He built on Peter the Rock.
The best and closest translation is the Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome translated it from the original Greek. But even the best translations lack something, but not so much that we can’t see it there in written words.
Luke 1:28 (original Greek) καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν,
Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη translates to our letters; Chaire, Kecharitomene, which translates from the Latin Vulgate, “Hail, full of grace.” Mary is so overflowing with grace that there is no room for sin. And this was from the moment of her conception. God did this for her from the merits of Jesus Christ because it was fitting.
You could also read in Genesis that God put enmity between her and the serpant/satan. They are in complete opposition.
I imagine that many of the posts in this thread already explained this to you. But I’m sure you refuse to see. So I will save myself the time of writing it all down for you since you refuse to see.
It seems that many non-Catholics put a limit to what God can do. And this is a good example. God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. You seem to make God finite because you don’t think that God can make Mary sinless. There is no reason why Mary shouldn’t be sinless. She carried Jesus and no one with sin could do that. It’s like the Ark of the Covenant, no one could touch it or else they died. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.
You could read about Mary’s sinlessness here in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
C
clmowry
Guest
Really?
Though I would agree with this statement many of our non-Catholic bretheren would seem to disagree with you.
See the “Oneness Pentacostal” Thread.
Chuck
C
clmowry
Guest
The bottom line is that God hasn’t said in His written Word that Mary was sinless…
Yes. This is true. There is no explicit statement about Mary being “sinless” in scripture, though there is plenty of evidence to show that it is implied.
…even though He could have made her sinless…
Which He did.
…and told us so in His written Word…
Which He did not need to do since He founded a Church that could clear up any disputes like this one.
Chuck
E
emeraldisle
Guest
Now you have raised another point to prove that Mary wasn’t sinless, the Lord Jesus never once said that Mary was sinless.
.
L
LilyM
Guest
So? He never said there would BE such a thing as the NT Bible either, let alone that IT would be inspired/inerrant/infallible. Talk about shooting yerself in the foot!
E
emeraldisle
Guest
"Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation ‘full of grace,’ opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises ‘endowed with grace; dearly loved.’ The MNT task force translates it as ‘graciously favored by God,’ while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, ‘full of grace,’ is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, ‘O highly favored daughter’; JB, ‘So highly favored’) [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129].
aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2490
.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
How do you know that? Scripture doesn’t record every single word He ever spoke.
M
moondweller
Guest
You’ve got it backwards in respect to the Christological controversies and the doctrines that subsequently formed. The Christology of the Councils was settled by appealing to the Scriptures which revealed and supported it . The doctrines regarding the Person of Jesus Christ weren’t first developed by men and then an appeal was made to the Scriptures to support their preconceived notions. The historic, Christological doctrines were developed based on Biblical (Divine) revelation.
This was not the case with your Marian doctrines, such as her “immaculate conception,” “perpetual sinlessness,” “perpetual virginity,” “bodily assumption” and her alleged present position as “Queen of heaven.” These doctrines were first formed by men and subsequently introduced into Christianity. When challenged appeal was/is made to the Scriptures for support, not exegetically (as with the Christological doctrines), but eisegetically, i.e., by reading those fully formed Marian doctrines into selected texts. Two of the most salient examples presented on this thread are: (1) the idea of “sinlessness” imposed upon the Greek word kecaritomene in Lk. 1:28 and, (2) spiritualizing O.T. Scriptures and presenting them as types of Mary.
It is true that the historic, Christological doctrines were defined and developed from the Scriptures as defense against false teachings (an exegetical study of the Scriptures proved their falsity), but your Marian dogmas are extra-biblical, formed and developed not out of divine revelation but out of human imagination, human logic. They’re imposed upon the Scriptures, not formed from them (exegesis vs. eisegesis).
Succinctly, your Marian dogmas are not ascertained from an exegetical study of the Scriptures, but were adopted as dogma in spite of this fact. They were subsequently dropped as dogma by most of “Protestantism” because of this fact.
Bottom line, even Catholics admit that Catholicism is not necessarily a Biblically based religion - it’s traditionally based. The Bible (Scriptures) being just a part of its “tradition.” Catholics don’t need Biblical support for any of their Marian dogmas. As stated on this thread (and many others) Catholic authority rests in its church hierarchy and tradition.
The O.P. essentially asked why the sinlessness of Mary is not (exegetically) taught in the Bible. Catholics defensively try to prove that it is (but utterly fail). Why waste time and energy? The authority behind its Marian doctrines is not the Scriptures but its tradition. These must be accepted and personally believed because that’s the word that comes from the front office - whether it’s Biblical or not.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
No the bottom line is there is nothing in scripture even commanding The Catholic Church to write His Word nor assemble The Bible. So who authorized the bible to even be written? There is nothing in scripture that tells us God explicitly commanded any of scripture to be written.
The Catholic Church of Her own God given authority wrote and assembled the Bible. Our Lord verbally gave The Catholic Church the authority to spread the good news and also gave The Catholic Church the authority to teach and baptise and to loose and bind sins and to establish its ecclesiastical rules of order necessary fort its office. This was all commanded by spoken word by Jesus. The Church recorded these commandments and Jesus teachings about 20 years AFTER they were spoken in Matthew 16:18: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
If the Catholic Church had decided not to print the word in written form would you have believed us Catholics if we told you “that Jesus told us what we know”?
Don’t you think if The Catholic Church could be trusted to deliver the Good News in written form that it can be trusted to teach The Good News too? I just don’t understand your rationale here. Would you have rather that Catholics not written anything down and just told you “Listen to The Pope and everything he says”? Would you have felt better if The Church had put that down in written word in scripture somewhere?
Sola Scriptura is a teaching of man that comes 1500 years too late. Replace Sola Scriptura with “By the Word of God Only” and you can see that God’s word can be written, spoken, sung or living. That is closer to the truth. The Bible itself does not even authorize itself to be written so how do you know its “all there is to know” and by what authority do you know that what it says it “true”? The answer is all you have is the tradition of the Catholic Church and the original authority of The Catholic Church to go on to even get a written Bible.
James
E
emeraldisle
Guest
Who used the Scriptures against satan and who read from the Scriptures at the start of His ministry?
So why should anyone believe that Mary was sinless when God doesn’t tell us so in His written Word.
Of course the answer I keep getting is just believe what the Catholic Church tells you and never mind what God says or doesn’t say in His written Word.
.
C
clmowry
Guest
Now you have raised another point to prove that Mary wasn’t sinless, the Lord Jesus never once said that Mary was sinless.
Let’s see:
He doesn’t say abortion is homicide in scripture. Does that mean it is not?
He doesn’t say we should worship on Sunday in scripture. Should we?
He doesn’t say that the Apostles should write any scripture in scripture. Should they have?
He doesn’t say lots of things about many things in scripture.
Chuck
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Why do you disobey the 10 commandments and not keep the Sabbath holy and instead go to church on Sunday rather than Saturday? The Lord did not command this. The Catholic Church gave you this teaching and tradition.
James
L
LilyM
Guest
Really? He used the New Testament against Satan? Decades before a word of it had been written? I did say NEW TESTAMENT, m’dear, but obviously you didn’t read my post properly.
So the question again - why do you believe the NT is scripture in spite of there being nothing indicating that Jesus ever once mentioned such a New Testament?
E
emeraldisle
Guest
- Status