Posted on 05/20/2020 3:50:15 PM PDT by ebb tide
You do realize the difference between the Creator and the created....right?
Jesus is the Creator and the rest of us are the created.
That's a fundamental belief....unless you're mormon.
Sadly, like a lot of Roman Catholics you excel at the RC talking points but fail at knowledge of Scripture.
Scripture is clear that Jesus was sinless. He is the only person in Scripture noted to be sinless.....you do know that...right??
As for using scripture to attack the Catholic faith that is ridiculous.
Actually, the Bible addresses this issue in that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17 NASB"
The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around, and there was no compilation of approved books for her first 300 years.
Actually you have this wrong.
The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around, and there was no compilation of approved books for her first 300 years.
No. The Scriptures came from God. The church recognized those writings that were inspired.
There was far more agreement on the canon than most realize.
The OT was already in place...all 39 books.
Paul's letters had been accorded status as canon by ~66 AD.
Rome didn't finalize its canon until the Council of Trent. So for ~1500 years Rome operated without an approved set of Scriptures.
And what is very telling at Trent is that Rome did not include ANY of the other writings they consider to be "tradition" in their canon.
And if I would you I wouldn’t be so quick to degrade the mother of our Lord to just a womb with a body around it. Remember that all will call her blessed-even the Protestant denominations.
There is no denigrating of Mary other than the idols Rome has made of her.
If anything Rome has denigrated the name of Christ and the Spirit by equating their attributes to Mary.
Yes....she is counted as blessed...as are believers in James 5:11.
Actually, the newer translation of Bibles approved by Rome render the passage as Greetings, favored one!
Translation from the NRSVCE.
And a perfect angelic being praising a creation is nowhere else in the Bible, not is calling anyone full of grace. That should give any Protestant who degrades her to just a womb, especially since Jesus did his first miracle at her request, something to think about.
The same Greek verb, though in a different form, is used of believers in Ephesians 1:6.
6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:6
xaritóō (from 5486 /xárisma, "grace," see there) – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
No they don't...especially when confronted with Scripture that contradicts their position.
For that matter the ECFs they rely upon so heavily contradicts their position on the Immaculate Conception and most of their other non-biblical dogmas.
You have some references available from the ECFs? I’d love to be able to add those to my stockpile of copypastas.
From his "apologetic".
After the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, God promised the advent of another “woman” in Genesis 3:15, or a “New Eve” who would oppose Lucifer, and whose “seed” would crush his head. This “woman” and “her seed” would reverse the curse, so to speak, that the original “man” and “woman” had brought upon humanity through their disobedience.
It should be noted the term "New Eve" is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture nor hinted at.
Perhaps Staples isn't familiar with the Catholic Encyclopedia.
It claims to be:
The Catholic Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history. https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/
*****
It has the following to say about the Immaculate Conception.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
Of the major translations the Douay-Rheims is the only one to render the passage as "she shall crush thy head".
https://biblehub.com/genesis/3-15.htm
The RSVCE, NRSVCE, and NRSVACE, all record the passage as "he shall crush they head (or strike)"
A bad translation leading to bad theology.
The Roman Catholic dogma is built on very, very pourus sand.
Notice, like the Left, how the CE has to "dismiss" these.
Bear in mind the RCC has said it will not say anything counter to Scripture or that is not in unanimous consent of the fathers.
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. Vatican I, Session 2:2, Jan 6, 1870
Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God...https://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm
*****
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul ; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt ; and that for her sins also Christ died ( Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum ( Matthew 12:46 ; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).
https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
So here are three ECFs, and these aren't chumps by any stretch, who are not in "unanimous consent" regarding this issue.
Yet Rome ignores these. They resort to calling them "stray private opinions."
And those would be what?
Where is the verifiable record of those teachings?
Two hours of sleep, not going to get to everyone...
ealgeone, here is your Tradition to follow...
“...let us note that the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian...” St. Athanasius (360 A.D.) - Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1:28.
and
“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down THROUGH AN ORDER OF SUCCESSION from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Origen (c. 230 AD) - Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2. [emphasis mine]
****
One can be “in error”, and not sin. It is only when one obstinately persist in error that one sins, also conditional upon the seriousness of the issue).
****
By Mary saying “God my Savior” does NOT say she sinned.
Imagine people standing on a bank of the raging river of Sin, the bank gives way and everyone falls in except Mary, because God saves her from falling in. God is still her Savior, and she is still sinless. The rest of us need to be fished out, usually a great many times, because we slip back in. So, yes God is her Savior and still is sinless.
The Orthodox agree about her “purity and sinlessness” in their prepurification doctrine. Yet, the Orthodox have never declared when, though the Catholic Church only recently definitively declared that it was before conception. The fact that they declare her sinless, coming from the other major ancient branch of Christianity indicates a very early universal belief. Sinlessness implies she was spared the stain of Original Sin.
David explicitly says “...You saved me from violence”. Mary on the other hand says...[49] Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me;...” Luke 1:49
Big difference.
To say everyone who calls God their Savior “sinless”, is ludicrous. Is such a declaration by itself magical? No. Her declaration was divinely inspired revelation about what had already happened.
****
There is an article suggesting that the greek version of “Hail Mary, full of grace...” can be translated as “Hail Mary, Immaculate Conception...”. After all, Mary thought... [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:29. See, she is focused on the salutation part. You should be able to find that article easily, by using the greek letter words and english words.
****
We can go round and round, over and over again. You stressing your verses, and me stressing mine. The trick is, viewed as a whole, the Bible is Catholic. No offense, but when you talk, it is either your opinion or the opinion of the man-made 400-500 year old Evangelical Tradition. I cannot speak with authority, but I can speak authoritatively through the Dogmas of the 2000 year old Catholic Church. The fact is people can make the Bible say what they want it to say, that much is clear, so where is the Apostolic authority to say definitively which Biblical translation is correct?
Yet that was your assertion. I merely used Scripture to show the error of your position.
Now, let's back up to this claim by you.
I could find some bad Catholics that agree with you, you can always find someone to agree with you, problem is they lack authority.
My reply:
I can show you several of the ECFs Romans hold near and dear that say Mary committed sin. Are they in error? Do they lack "authority"?
You cite Origen as an authority below.
“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down THROUGH AN ORDER OF SUCCESSION from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Origen (c. 230 AD) - Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2. [emphasis mine]
Are you sure you want to hold up Origen as an authority??
“In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon (canon is a Greek word meaning “standard”), reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books”
You know I spent some time on that post, for you to come back with flat, ignore what I said responses is insulting.
Waiting on your answer regarding Origen.
Please start citing your sources.
You make the claim you provide the "proof". I've read multiple RC approved versions of the Bible and have not come across this.
You're the first to make this claim.
*****
After all, Mary thought... [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:29. See, she is focused on the salutation part. You should be able to find that article easily, by using the greek letter words and english words.
Mary was understandably perplexed by several things Gabriel said to her.
28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. Luke 1:28-30 NASB
However, there is no allowance for your translation of "Hail Mary, Immaculate Conception."
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you. LK 1:28 NRSVCE
In either translation she recognized it was a salutation...a greeting as translated in the two versions provided.
To my knowledge there are two Origens, one good, one bad. So, don’t step on that landmine.
Learning a lot of bible origin history, waiting for more lies.
“You make the claim you provide the “proof”. I’ve read multiple RC approved versions of the Bible and have not come across this.
You’re the first to make this claim”
See you aren’t even reading my post, just jumping from one attack to the other. I said ARTICLE. Find it you will find it interesting, if you bother reading it.
LOL....all those OT Roman Catholics.
Your argument is over right there.
No offense, but when you talk, it is either your opinion or the opinion of the man-made 400-500 year old Evangelical Tradition.
No offense taken. However, when you cite your ECFs you are citing their opinions....their writings are not inspired....and they contradict each other and thus Rome leading the Roman Catholic wondering which one to trust.
I cannot speak with authority, but I can speak authoritatively through the Dogmas of the 2000 year old Catholic Church.
The Muslim, the Mormon, the Hindu all claim authority based on their traditions.
Romans like to continue to cite time as if that's a claim to authority. The Hindu can cite time as can the Jew. Next you'll probably want to assert the 1.3 b claimed to be Roman Catholic....except when confronted with Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, the Sedevaticanists.
The fact is people can make the Bible say what they want it to say, that much is clear, so where is the Apostolic authority to say definitively which Biblical translation is correct?
Well, you're really in a pickle with your argument. Rome has only dogmatically defined about 30 or so verses depending on which RC writer you believe.
There are 7,957 verses in the NT. That only leaves you 7,927 to go figure out on your own....oh, wait....the Roman Catholic cannot read and understand Scripture on their own.
You're really stuck on not be able to understanding the bulk of the NT.
No I read your post.
I saw where you said there was an article. I said you make the claim you provide the "proof".
I then said I've read RC approved versions of the Bible and had not come across that rendering. You're the first to make the claim.
Playground rules....put up or hush up.
Well, which one are you citing??
Yet I've told none.
And btw...it's against forum rules to call posters a liar.
Oh, and you might want to check your statement about Athanasias.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.