Christian Forums

Quote from: Nevertheless on Wed Dec 19, 2007 - 13:30:16

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 - 06:59:19

Quote from: Nevertheless on Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 20:30:32
The "mean things" as you put it are not said about Mary, but about those who appear to elevate her to a position equal to God.

Catholics do not elevate her to a position equal to God.  She is not a deity nor is she divine.

Now you're the one who's not reading carefully. The wording of that sentence was quite intentional.

I read your statement and understood it quite well.  The wording of my statement was also intentional and definitive.  If non-Catholics get the wrong idea about what Catholicism teaches about Mary, this isn't my problem...it is theirs.  I know what Catholicism really teaches on this subject.  I wish I could say the same for others.

Prayer is a form of worship.

God is a jealous God.. worshiping money, saints, people, etc. are no-nos.

Praying to anyone other then the trinity is a no-no.

Mary does not fit this category.. thus cannot be prayed to.

Simple as that.

Let he who is without doctrinal error cast the first stone.

Charlie

I often don't agree with you.  However, I like the way you seem to always put thought into your answers, almost always have some sound logic behind them and discuss issue in a respectful way.  Later Johnb

Quote from: Johnb on Wed Dec 19, 2007 - 15:40:13
Let he who is without doctrinal error cast the first stone.

It's amazing how God allowed that margin inclusion to work its way into scripture.. that verse in and of itself has caused more problems than I can possible name.

QuoteBefore you play the "pagan" card, you might want to read this...

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=20874.msg440872#msg440872

I have seen it all before Broach. One only needs to read the writings of the Catholic institution to see that they are are self condemning in light of God's Word. Wake up!

Dave

Quote from: Dave... on Wed Dec 19, 2007 - 19:08:12

QuoteBefore you play the "pagan" card, you might want to read this...

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=20874.msg440872#msg440872

I have seen it all before Broach. One only needs to read the writings of the Catholic institution to see that they are are self condemning in light of God's Word. Wake up!

Dave

As a former Protestant, I have also seen it all as well.  It took me almost 10 years to wake up.  Trust me, my eyes are very much opened.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Jon Marc for using scripture to bring to my attention the exact Words of the
Bible. And thank you for all your replies. Still, if I were the Holy Man, Jesus, a God with our Father in Heaven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't anyone else catch this. Jesus is not "A" god. He is GOD. This person is trolling and it seems like most bought it hook, line, and sinker. Pun intended.

No, you're mistaken if you're equating people posting in the thread to buying the OP hook, line, and sinker.  I can assure you from experience here that I doubt anyone who's posted so far believes Jesus is "a god" and not God.

By trolling, and people on this site "Biting", I meant no disrespect to people's doctrinal beliefs. Sorry if it sounded that way. When a person comes to a site and posts for the first time and it is VERY confrontational, they're trying to get a rise out of someone.

I didn't think you meant any disrespect, Big Ed.  I was just letting you know that the fact people let that "a" slip by their radar didn't imply any sort of agreement.  That's all.

yeah, I haven't heard anyone say they are mormon here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, I haven't heard anyone say they are mormon here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jehova's Witnesses also believe that Jesus was a god, not God. I don't think this person is either one.

Quote from: Big Ed on Thu Dec 20, 2007 - 08:11:18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Jon Marc for using scripture to bring to my attention the exact Words of the
Bible. And thank you for all your replies. Still, if I were the Holy Man, Jesus, a God with our Father in Heaven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't anyone else catch this. Jesus is not "A" god. He is GOD. This person is trolling and it seems like most bought it hook, line, and sinker. Pun intended.

I noticed it but wanted to read the rest of the comments before I replied. Aside from that, Romans 3:20-23 says (please excuse the long citing, I like to put things in context) "20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." (NKJV)
I don't see where it says except Mary, the mother of the man Jesus Christ (emphases mine). And I'm still looking for the scripture that describes Mary as not being under original sin. Can someone please tell me where it is?

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 - 19:57:37
And I'm still looking for the scripture that describes Mary as not being under original sin. Can someone please tell me where it is?

There is no such scripture since Mary needed  a Saviour like everyone else.Romans 3:9 says that all are under sin, and it doesn't say "Except for My mother, Mary, who is sinless like Me."

Quote from: Jon-Marc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 - 23:23:12

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 - 19:57:37
And I'm still looking for the scripture that describes Mary as not being under original sin. Can someone please tell me where it is?

There is no such scripture since Mary needed  a Saviour like everyone else.Romans 3:9 says that all are under sin, and it doesn't say "Except for My mother, Mary, who is sinless like Me."

Yep, Mary needed a Saviour just like everyone else.

Hmmmm...wonder why she was "full of grace" though.  Something to ponder.

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 - 23:28:46

Quote from: Jon-Marc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 - 23:23:12

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 - 19:57:37
And I'm still looking for the scripture that describes Mary as not being under original sin. Can someone please tell me where it is?

There is no such scripture since Mary needed  a Saviour like everyone else.Romans 3:9 says that all are under sin, and it doesn't say "Except for My mother, Mary, who is sinless like Me."

Yep, Mary needed a Saviour just like everyone else.

Hmmmm...wonder why she was "full of grace" though.  Something to ponder.

Would you mind giving me a source for Mary being "full of grace"?  When I searched for it I came up with two people in the NT who were said to be "full of grace". One was Stephen, the first martyr, and the other was Jesus. I searched the following translations: New American Standard, American Standard, KJV, NIV, New Living, English Standard, Young's Literal, and Revised Standard. Perhaps it's in a different one.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just wanted to check the passage before commenting on your post.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 00:06:19
Would you mind giving me a source for Mary being "full of grace"?  When I searched for it I came up with two people in the NT who were said to be "full of grace". One was Stephen, the first martyr, and the other was Jesus. I searched the following translations: New American Standard, American Standard, KJV, NIV, New Living, English Standard, Young's Literal, and Revised Standard. Perhaps it's in a different one.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just wanted to check the passage before commenting on your post.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When the angel entered her home, he greeted her and said, "You are favored by the Lord! The Lord is with you."

King James Bible
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

American Standard Version
And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.

Bible in Basic English
And the angel came in to her and said, Peace be with you, to whom special grace has been given; the Lord is with you.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Darby Bible Translation
And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou amongst women.

English Revised Version
And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.

Tyndale New Testament
And the angel went in unto her, and said: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Weymouth New Testament
So Gabriel went into the house and said to her, "Joy be to you, favoured one! the Lord is with you."

Webster's Bible Translation
And the angel came to her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

World English Bible
Having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!"

Young's Literal Translation
And the messenger having come in unto her, said, 'Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;'

The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel's visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Quote from: Jon-Marc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 - 23:23:12

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 - 19:57:37
And I'm still looking for the scripture that describes Mary as not being under original sin. Can someone please tell me where it is?

There is no such scripture since Mary needed  a Saviour like everyone else.Romans 3:9 says that all are under sin, and it doesn't say "Except for My mother, Mary, who is sinless like Me."

Ah...but she was under original sin.  Ah...she did need a saviour like everyone else.  The one thing I had to learn when studying Catholicism was to expand one's thinking.  Catholic theology is pretty deep stuff.  Think outside of the box boys and girls.

Besides, I don't hold to Sola Scriptura, which is a very flawed doctrine.  So arguments that begin with, "I don't see it in Scripture...." or "If it isn't in Scripture..." are irrelevant to me.  That is one road you don't want to travel down.  Besides, there is nothing in Scripture that supports sola scriptura.

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 17:39:51
Where in the Bible does it say she wasn't saved from original sin??  We need to get over this "if it isn't in the Bible, then...."

For Protestants that's going to be a hard sell. Because Scripture is the only source that both Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox agree is infallible.

One of the reasons I could not in good conscience be a Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) is because of their "extreme" devotion to Mary. In Scripture Mary's role is always downplayed and understated and she always takes a back seat to Christ, which Catholicism claims is true of its devotion to Mary as well, at least in theory. However it seems that in actual fact, in some quarters, Mary gets as much or more "press" than her son, our savior, Jesus. Most of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary, such as her Immaculate Conception, were actually formulated long after the first century had passed (in the case of the Immaculate Conception, it was only made dogma in the 1850s AD). Presumably the first generation of Christians was saved without any recourse to this Marian doctrine or many others, as an item of faith. If so, then why's it necessary that modern Catholics believe it as an item of faith?

Pax.

Lee.

Here is the definition of the term some translate as "favored" and others "full of grace" if anyone's wondering.
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5487

Here's the interlinear of the passage as a whole, too:
Luke 1:28 Interlinear

Quote from: Jon-Marc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 - 23:23:12

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 - 19:57:37
And I'm still looking for the scripture that describes Mary as not being under original sin. Can someone please tell me where it is?

There is no such scripture since Mary needed  a Saviour like everyone else.Romans 3:9 says that all are under sin, and it doesn't say "Except for My mother, Mary, who is sinless like Me."

You guys know I was being sarcastic, right? (I know I shouldn't)

While we're at it, can someone remind me of where the scripture is that states that anyone is "under 'original sin'"?

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 09:09:06

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 17:39:51
Where in the Bible does it say she wasn't saved from original sin??  We need to get over this "if it isn't in the Bible, then...."

For Protestants that's going to be a hard sell. Because Scripture is the only source that both Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox agree is infallible.

One of the reasons I could not in good conscience be a Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) is because of their "extreme" devotion to Mary. In Scripture Mary's role is always downplayed and understated and she always takes a back seat to Christ, which Catholicism claims is true of its devotion to Mary as well, at least in theory. However it seems that in actual fact, in some quarters, Mary gets as much or more "press" than her son, our savior, Jesus. Most of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary, such as her Immaculate Conception, were actually formulated long after the first century had passed (in the case of the Immaculate Conception, it was only made dogma in the 1850s AD). Presumably the first generation of Christians was saved without any recourse to this Marian doctrine or many others, as an item of faith. If so, then why's it necessary that modern Catholics believe it as an item of faith?

Pax.

Lee.

Lee,
I appreciate your comments.  However, I must correct a few assumptions.

Even though it was defined as a dogma in the 1850s, it was always a doctrine.  It was not just evented in the 1850s.  The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed.

There are writings that actually support the Immaculate Conception among the Church Fathers...

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

The mistake that most Protestants make concerning the doctrines pertaining to Mary is that they think that were formulated to deify her or make her equal to God.  Absolutely not!!  They were formulated to protect and honor the divinity of Christ.  Do some take it to the extreme...yes!  But the Catholic Church has issued rebukes to those that have taken it to the extreme.  There is a difference between honor and worship.  I am often bothered by the fact that her role is downplayed, especially when one looks at her life and what she endured.  Does it make her divine...no...does it make her a saint (perhaps chief among saints)...absolutely.

Quote from: DCR on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 09:53:53
While we're at it, can someone remind me of where the scripture is that states that anyone is "under 'original sin'"?

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 10:34:54

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 09:09:06

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 17:39:51
Where in the Bible does it say she wasn't saved from original sin??  We need to get over this "if it isn't in the Bible, then...."

For Protestants that's going to be a hard sell. Because Scripture is the only source that both Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox agree is infallible.

One of the reasons I could not in good conscience be a Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) is because of their "extreme" devotion to Mary. In Scripture Mary's role is always downplayed and understated and she always takes a back seat to Christ, which Catholicism claims is true of its devotion to Mary as well, at least in theory. However it seems that in actual fact, in some quarters, Mary gets as much or more "press" than her son, our savior, Jesus. Most of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary, such as her Immaculate Conception, were actually formulated long after the first century had passed (in the case of the Immaculate Conception, it was only made dogma in the 1850s AD). Presumably the first generation of Christians was saved without any recourse to this Marian doctrine or many others, as an item of faith. If so, then why's it necessary that modern Catholics believe it as an item of faith?

Pax.

Lee.

Lee,
I appreciate your comments.  However, I must correct a few assumptions.

Even though it was defined as a dogma in the 1850s, it was always a doctrine.  It was not just evented in the 1850s.  The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed.

There are writings that actually support the Immaculate Conception among the Church Fathers...

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

The mistake that most Protestants make concerning the doctrines pertaining to Mary is that they think that were formulated to deify her or make her equal to God.  Absolutely not!!  They were formulated to protect and honor the divinity of Christ.  Do some take it to the extreme...yes!  But the Catholic Church has issued rebukes to those that have taken it to the extreme.  There is a difference between honor and worship.  I am often bothered by the fact that her role is downplayed, especially when one looks at her life and what she endured.  Does it make her divine...no...does it make her a saint (perhaps chief among saints)...absolutely.

But note the dates by all your quotes.  That's where things get hinky.  One man says, "See how early?" while the other sees the same dates and says, "See how late!"

Broach972, all you have said in your last post was put forward by humans. They are not biblical writings but by Catholics. (right?) So, how am I supposed to believe someone who wasn't there or whose words are not backed up by scripture? Let alone coming from a church who's leadership believes that if you aren't Catholic that you are not in the Church.
Something as important as Mary not having sin in her life most assuredly who have been spoken of in scriptures, don't you think?
Edit: sorry jmg3rd, I meant to address broach972's post.

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 14:15:21
Broach972, all you have said in your last post was put forward by humans. They are not biblical writings but by Catholics. (right?) So, how am I supposed to believe someone who wasn't there or whose words are not backed up by scripture? Let alone coming from a church who's leadership believes that if you aren't Catholic that you are not in the Church.
Something as important as Mary not having sin in her life most assuredly who have been spoken of in scriptures, don't you think?
Edit: sorry jmg3rd, I meant to address broach972's post.

Brandon,
I appreciate your comments and will try my best to address them.  Well, I can actually answer this from a variety of angles.  First, you assume that sola scriptura is a valid doctrine and for me, it is not.  Scripture gives us a very narrow view of Jesus' life, primarily his childhood and ministry.  Not much is written about Him while in his 20s.  Would we assume that he ceased living during this time just because Scripture doesn't talk about it?  Does it mean that this part of his life is any less important than what is written?  Probably not.  What we know about Jesus is written after the fact.  Jesus never wrote anything down or passed anything down to us in written form.

I cannot stand this mentality of "well, if isn't in Scripture, then it must be false."  Even if there is nothing to contradict it.  Just the mere idea that it doesn't mention something automatically makes it false.  This is hogwash and irrational.  Scripture doesn't mention air conditioning or televisions but I know that they are real.  I would take it a step further.  Scripture never condemns slavery but who would agree that slavery is an honorable and morally accepted institution?  We would be horrified at the notion.   Would we say that, "well, Scripture really nevers states that it is morally wrong; therefore, we shouldn't be quick to condemn it."

Besides, Brandon, most Christians during the first 1500 years were "Catholic."  The Church Fathers were indeed Catholic.  They played an important part in developing the doctrines that most Christians hold dear, i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity, which is mentioned no where in Scripture but is implicitly implied.  And don't get me started on the Rapture...talk about a late night invention.

I would assume that these individuals knew more about the development of the faith than me some 2000 years later.  Most of these writings predate the official canonization of the Bible that we have today.  Remember, the New Testament was not canonized until the end of the late 4th century.

While studying Catholicism, the doctrines pertaining to Mary really never concerned me.  Even using logic, some could even come to the same conclusions.  For me, the test was quite simple, do they contradict Scripture in some form.  For me, the answer is no.

I would recommend the following link for further research.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 11:34:18

Quote from: DCR on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 09:53:53
While we're at it, can someone remind me of where the scripture is that states that anyone is "under 'original sin'"?

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

And what translation might that be?

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 15:10:43

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 11:34:18

Quote from: DCR on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 09:53:53
While we're at it, can someone remind me of where the scripture is that states that anyone is "under 'original sin'"?

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

And what translation might that be?

Thats the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. No other english translation renders "εφ ω παντες ημαρτον" as "in whom all have sinned".

Broach, please call me Rick. Brandon is my grandson, LOL. What you said was very thorough, but does not answer my question.

QuoteSomething as important as Mary not having sin in her life most assuredly who have been spoken of in scriptures, don't you think?

Especially if it is direct contradiction to what is written in the Bible by Paul Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;.... (KJV 2000 NT)
Romans 5:12 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:....(KJV 2000 NT)
I know that these verses are out of context, yet they are clear enough to stand on their own.

Rick

ps sorry, I forgot to cite my reference for the prior response the from the Catholic Encyclopedia as posted here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm. Sorry about that. Guess I should proofread my posts, lol.
Rick

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 10:34:54The mistake that most Protestants make concerning the doctrines pertaining to Mary is that they think that were formulated to deify her or make her equal to God.  Absolutely not!!  They were formulated to protect and honor the divinity of Christ.  Do some take it to the extreme...yes!  But the Catholic Church has issued rebukes to those that have taken it to the extreme.  There is a difference between honor and worship.  I am often bothered by the fact that her role is downplayed, especially when one looks at her life and what she endured.  Does it make her divine...no...does it make her a saint (perhaps chief among saints)...absolutely.

Did God really need us to "formulate" some doctrine to protect and honor the divinity of Christ?

Broach, I will not participate in a long discussion because it is not likely to profit either of us, but I do think it interesting that after rejecting Sola Scriptura you then cite several scriptures to support the Church's right to pronounce doctrine and dogma.  Surely you agree that even the Church can go too far.  As my mother often said, if your best friend told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?  If the Church told you to jump off a cliff theologically, would you do it? Assuming you agree there is a line at some point beyond which we should not follow even the Church, where and how is that line to be drawn?

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 15:17:40
Broach, please call me Rick. Brandon is my grandson, LOL. What you said was very thorough, but does not answer my question.

QuoteSomething as important as Mary not having sin in her life most assuredly who have been spoken of in scriptures, don't you think?

Especially if it is direct contradiction to what is written in the Bible by Paul Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;.... (KJV 2000 NT)
Romans 5:12 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:....(KJV 2000 NT)
I know that these verses are out of context, yet they are clear enough to stand on their own.

Rick

ps sorry, I forgot to cite my reference for the prior response the from the Catholic Encyclopedia as posted here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm. Sorry about that. Guess I should proofread my posts, lol.
Rick

Greetings Rick,
The Immaculate Conception does not contradict any of these verses.  How does this particular doctrine contradict these verses?  These verses are very much correct and applied to Mary as well.

As for your question, I cannot speak for the writers in terms of what was important to include or not.  Again, sola scriptura poses a problem for us here.  One would assume that everything that was important or part of the Word of God was written down to begin with?  I would ask you to consider the following:

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

I could cite other verses to support the existence of an oral tradition that passed from the Apostles.  Again, sola scripture has its problems.

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 15:26:13
Did God really need us to "formulate" some doctrine to protect and honor the divinity of Christ?

Absolutely, this was one of the raging contoversies in the early Church.  Why do you think the Council of Nicea was called?  The divinity of Christ was not a given and more importantly, the relationship between the three "natures" was constantly debated.  Without the Trinity, we could go ahead and pack up and head home.

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 15:26:13
Broach, I will not participate in a long discussion because it is not likely to profit either of us, but I do think it interesting that after rejecting Sola Scriptura you then cite several scriptures to support the Church's right to pronounce doctrine and dogma.  Surely you agree that even the Church can go too far.  As my mother often said, if your best friend told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?  If the Church told you to jump off a cliff theologically, would you do it? Assuming you agree there is a line at some point beyond which we should not follow even the Church, where and how is that line to be drawn?

Why is it interesting that I would use Scripture to support these ideas.  The rejection of Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with stating that Scripture is wrong or not a rule/guide in matters of faith.  As far as the Church going to far...in what sense?  Catholics are not mindless robots who are told not to read and study scripture.  Theologicially speaking, I have no problems with what the Church teaches or believes.  This theology has stood for 2000 years.  Who am I to question it 2000 years later.  Again, if I want to know how a car works, should I go to the inventor or someone who just studied the manual.  I am a new convert to the Catholic faith.  I didn't jump off the cliff...I climbed to the top of the mountain.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 16:07:01

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 15:17:40
Broach, please call me Rick. Brandon is my grandson, LOL. What you said was very thorough, but does not answer my question.

QuoteSomething as important as Mary not having sin in her life most assuredly who have been spoken of in scriptures, don't you think?

Especially if it is direct contradiction to what is written in the Bible by Paul Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;.... (KJV 2000 NT)
Romans 5:12 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:....(KJV 2000 NT)
I know that these verses are out of context, yet they are clear enough to stand on their own.

Rick

ps sorry, I forgot to cite my reference for the prior response the from the Catholic Encyclopedia as posted here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm. Sorry about that. Guess I should proofread my posts, lol.
Rick

Greetings Rick,
The Immaculate Conception does not contradict any of these verses.  How does this particular doctrine contradict these verses?  These verses are very much correct and applied to Mary as well.

As for your question, I cannot speak for the writers in terms of what was important to include or not.  Again, sola scriptura poses a problem for us here.  One would assume that everything that was important or part of the Word of God was written down to begin with?  I would ask you to consider the following:

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

I could cite other verses to support the existence of an oral tradition that passed from the Apostles.  Again, sola scripture has its problems.

Wa-wa-wa-wait! I'm not talking about the Immaculate Conception. There is no question in my mind that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived. What I am questioning is the contention that Mary was without sin, i.e., not under original sin - which I have provided biblical evidence that she was not (sinless) and have not received anything back but Catholic theology without any biblical evidence. What a RC patriarch conjectures is not equal to what is written in the original KJV. Those verses that I gave from Romans are in the Catholic version, too.