Sinless Mary? Another Roman Catholic myth...

[gingercat]

I don't think Protestants are evil (not most of them anyway).

According to Protestant's Bible, you are not going to be with Jesus.

Catholics have changed the Bible enormousely. Why do you think the Protestants are fighting against Catholics so hard? They have good reasons! They are not just enjoying fighting against Catholics. Many of them dont believe you are Jesus' followers (I am one of them).

 

[CatholicXian]

I don't think Protestants are evil (not most of them anyway).

According to Protestant's Bible, you are not going to be with Jesus.

Really? Does it mention me by name?

Christ is my Judge. End of story.

Catholics have changed the Bible enormousely. Why do you think the Protestants are fighting against Catholics so hard? They have good reasons! They are not just enjoying fighting against Catholics. Many of them dont believe you are Jesus' followers (I am one of them).

I would argue it is Protestants who've changed the Bible... Martin Luther throwing out the deuterocanonicals and sections of other books (ex. parts of Daniel, etc.) and wanting to take out Hebrews, Revelation, etc... doesn't quite sound like he was a fan of much of the Bible.

I don't "enjoy" debating Protestants, but I do feel I have an obligation to share the Truth (Christ) with all people, and to defend His established Church against slander and heresy and misconceptions. Most people, especially Protestant Christians, are usually easier to dialogue with because they recognize the value and importance of charity in all things.

I'm sorry you don't believe I follow Jesus. I try my hardest everyday to imitate Him. In the end, I will recognize Him, set myself at His feet for Judgment, knowing that I embraced Him with all my being. I am not worried. So I hope that you will not worry either, but don't hesitate to pray for me (I would never stop anyone from praying for me). Prayer is great and awesome (and God knows I need a lot of grace).

 

[gingercat]

I would argue it is Protestants who've changed the Bible...[/quote]

You see what I mean?

No one is supposed to change the Bible. One of us changed, either Catholics or Protestants. Who ever did is of Satan.

I believe the RCC changed. I make this assesment from what they did to many believers. It is not so hard to discern. This is called looking at the fruits.

 

[Gary]

Again the absurdities of the Roman Catholic faith.

They claim:

Generally, the Church does not encourage persons to enter into marriage if they do not plan on consummating the union. The Church generally recommends that those who desire to live in a state of consecrated virginity enter a religious order or live alone.

..... then to explain the absurdity of their second claim that Mary and Joseph did not consummate their marriage (according to the Roman Catholic "church") they do mental and Biblical gymnastics.

Read it; it is all really very sad.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=97

Like much of the Roman Catholic dogma, it has no Biblical backing at all.

 

[CatholicXian]

I would argue it is Protestants who've changed the Bible...

You see what I mean?

No one is supposed to change the Bible. One of us changed, either Catholics or Protestants. Who ever did is of Satan.

I believe the RCC changed. I make this assesment from what they did to many believers. It is not so hard to discern. This is called looking at the fruits.

You are quick to judge others. I will leave the Judgment up to Christ.

While I believe it was Protestants who've changed the Bible, I don't think the majority of Protestant Christians today have made the decision to reject the books that Martin Luther and his followers rejected on the same scale. Most people have merely just grown up in one church or another and don't put much study into history or early Christianity. The situation today is not the same as it was 500+ years ago.

But I think we've detracted this topic enough.

 

[gingercat]

Most people have merely just grown up in one church or another and don't put much study into history or early Christianity. The situation today is not the same as it was 500+ years ago.

I am just talking about fruit. Thats what the satan doesn't wants us to do: focus on the truth (fruit).

Yes, christainity and its practices have changed greately. It started with the RCC. But at least I believe Luther did a great job keeping the true Bible instead of what the RCC have changed and we still have chance to follow Him truthfully if we want. Not everyone who calims to be Christian are His followers. They dont want to follow Jesus' teachings. Many of us are taking a pick in what we practice.

 

[ttg]

Gingercat, you keep repeating that the Catholic Church changed the Bible, but you haven't said how. Please let me know how it has changed since the Council of Trent and why the Protestant version is different than the original version.

 

[Gary]

Gingercat, you keep repeating that the Catholic Church changed the Bible, but you haven't said how. Please let me know how it has changed since the Council of Trent and why the Protestant version is different than the original version.

Yes, the Roman Catholic "church" HAS changed their stance w.r.t. the Apocrypha. Read this:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=22095

 

[ttg]

All Catholic teachings are Scriptural.

Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord’s body. But Catholics do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics also believe that God’s Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.

What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

 

[ttg]

Gingercat, you keep repeating that the Catholic Church changed the Bible, but you haven't said how. Please let me know how it has changed since the Council of Trent and why the Protestant version is different than the original version.

Yes, the Roman Catholic "church" HAS changed their stance w.r.t. the Apocrypha. Read this:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=22095

Gary, you wrote this: "Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority. While Anglicans and some other non-Roman Catholic groups had a high regard for the devotional and historical value of the Apocrypha, they did not consider it inspired and of equal authority with Scripture."

But now they are not in the Protestant version and you claim the Bible has not changed.

They have always been in the original Catholic version, but you say the Catholic version has changed.

This makes no sense.

 

[thessalonian]

Thats what the satan doesn't wants us to do:

:o

Common. Can we read over what we write on this board? With all sincerety I say that this kind of thing hurts your cause. You come accross as not having the intellectual capacity to write. How can you possibly have sufficient knowledge to make any kind of a respected opinion on such matters. If you can't back up what you say, and that seems to be the case 9 times out of 10, then don't post. Your wasting our time.

 

[Gary]

Gingercat, you keep repeating that the Catholic Church changed the Bible, but you haven't said how. Please let me know how it has changed since the Council of Trent and why the Protestant version is different than the original version.

Yes, the Roman Catholic "church" HAS changed their stance w.r.t. the Apocrypha. Read this:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=22095

Gary, you wrote this: "Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority. While Anglicans and some other non-Roman Catholic groups had a high regard for the devotional and historical value of the Apocrypha, they did not consider it inspired and of equal authority with Scripture."

But now they are not in the Protestant version and you claim the Bible has not changed.

They have always been in the original Catholic version, but you say the Catholic version has changed.

This makes no sense.

Already explained....

Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority. While Anglicans and some other non-Roman Catholic groups had a high regard for the devotional and historical value of the Apocrypha, they did not consider it inspired and of equal authority with Scripture.

Read that again carefully.

Anyway, this thread is about Mary. Was she sinless? The Bible says: NO!

 

[gingercat]

Thats what the satan doesn't wants us to do:

:o

Common. Can we read over what we write on this board? With all sincerety I say that this kind of thing hurts your cause. You come accross as not having the intellectual capacity to write. How can you possibly have sufficient knowledge to make any kind of a respected opinion on such matters. If you can't back up what you say, and that seems to be the case 9 times out of 10, then don't post. Your wasting our time.

I am not wasting time. You just dont like to hear truth and reality of fruits. :o

 

[thessalonian]

Thats what the satan doesn't wants us to do:

:o

Common. Can we read over what we write on this board? With all sincerety I say that this kind of thing hurts your cause. You come accross as not having the intellectual capacity to write. How can you possibly have sufficient knowledge to make any kind of a respected opinion on such matters. If you can't back up what you say, and that seems to be the case 9 times out of 10, then don't post. Your wasting our time.

I am not wasting time. You just dont like to hear truth and reality of fruits. :o

You flatter yourself ginger. You don't know of my fruits. Are you a sinner Ginger? A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Heidi]

Actually, I just found a site; http://www.religioustolerance.org where it lists the reasons for annulments and lack of consummation is one of them. I'm sure there are many more sites also. Paul tells husbands and wives to come together after awhile if they have mutually abdstained for devotion to God, so that they will not be unduly tempted by Satan.

That's not a Catholic site. If it were truly Catholic dotrine it would be stated plain as day in an encyclical, Catechism reference, Canon Law, or Conciliar statement. Nonetheless, Heidi, I wasn't worried about what the grounds for annulments are (and just because one has grounds for an annulment, doesn't guarantee one... there are MANY other factors cited in Canon Law as pertain to annulments), but I was concerned by your remark that not consummating a marriage is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Catholic Church. This not only blatantly false, it's completely ridiculous and absurd.

Furthermore, a valid marriage can exist without consummation. A valid marriage comes into being through the free consent of the will of both persons (who are not otherwise impeded to marry). It's in Canon Law.

Thus, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, Mary and Joseph, while refraining from consummation by mutual consent for the sake of Jesus, had a valid marriage.

And the whole "cruel and unusual punishment" bit is just made up nonsense.

You don't have a leg to stand on in saying that mary was a virgin all of her life. You have zero biblical support and in fact, thae exact opposite.

Just how do you think God would tell us that Mary and Joseph had sexual realtions in Matthew 1:25? Especially considering that he also wanted to tell us that they abstained during Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. Do you know how he would tell us?

Exactly the way it is stated in Matthew 1:25, "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." So your attempt to twist it around to mean the exact opposite of what it says won't work. You can obviously be easily fooled but most of us cannot.

And as for Thessalonian's snide remark to a poster above, until she has the intelligence to understand basic word vocabulary in scripture, she's the last person to critize the intelligence of others.

 

[thessalonian]

You don't have a leg to stand on in saying that mary was a virgin all of her life. You have zero biblical support and in fact, thae exact opposite.

Heidi, every heard of the parrallel of the Ark of the Covenant to Mary? I am sure you have read my posts but have never responded. You simply put your head in the sand and say there is no parrellel between Luke 1 and 2 Sam 6. Other evidence has been given.
Heidi ignores what we have posted and goes straight for the jugular.

Just how do you think God would tell us that Mary and Joseph had sexual realtions in Matthew 1:25? Especially considering that he also wanted to tell us that they abstained during Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. Do you know how he would tell us?

Oh, that hurts hun. Except of course you refuse to consider Jewish language and culture and would rather make the Bible out to be a manual about the sex lives of Mary and Joseph. The ONLY purpose of that passage is to show that Jesus was BORN of a VIRGIN as ISAIHA prophesided. It does not tell us whether Mary and Joseph did or did not have sex after that point.

Exactly the way it is stated in Matthew 1:25, "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." So your attempt to twist it around to mean the exact opposite of what it says won't work. You can obviously be easily fooled but most of us cannot.

Heidi applies our common way of thinking to the Jewish language but in Hebrew the word for until does not always mean the action happened afterward. That's a simple fact if one goes through the many usages in the Old Testament. But Heidi likes to detract from the topic. It wouldn't even have been a sin, had Mary and Joseph had sex. It was not neccessary but fitting. There is good reason for it in the Catholic model. The true Biblical model. But we have ameature Bible scholars such as Heidi on this board who think you can simply read the english translation of Hebrew and Greek and get it all right. Sorry. Can't be done. The translation is not a complete one.

And as for Thessalonian's snide remark to a poster above, until she has the intelligence to understand basic word vocabulary in scripture, she's the last person to critize the intelligence of others.

I wasn't criticizing it. I was asking her to show it. By the way, do you agree with her on faith + works and OSAS. Guess she's okay on what she thinks about them as long as she stands with you against us.

Blessings

 

[gingercat]

You don't know of my fruits.

I have been reading plenty of Catholics rotten fruts from history and media. I dont make personal attack on the boards.

 

[thessalonian]

You don't know of my fruits.

I have been reading plenty of Catholics rotten fruts from history and media. I dont make personal attack on the boards.

Ah yes, broadbrushing and generalizations. That's what you do. All preists are child molesters. ARe you a sinner ginger? Paul (the good that I would do....., I am the worst sinner) was able to say it and so was Peter (Lord depart from me for I am a sinful man). Why can't you. You never answer my scriptural understanding in this regard.

I have been charged with bearing bad fruit BY YOU. That's a personal attack. Sorry, doesn't fly.

 

[CatholicXian]

You don't know of my fruits.

I have been reading plenty of Catholics rotten fruts from history and media. I dont make personal attack on the boards.

But you just told me above that I wasn't a follower of Christ. That's about as personal as any attack can get.



Nonetheless, this thread is WAY off track and only keeps getting moreso. Does anyone have any comments (other than Heidi, as we only seem to go in ciricles) about the fact that the word "until" (Greek, "heos") does not always mean "and then it happened" as Heidi claims it does.

Also, why does Mary express surprise (cf. Luke 1:34) at conceiving a child if she was preparing to be married (the Angel says to Mary that she WILL conceive (future tense)? Isn't it normal for people to become pregnant after marriage? The Angel never says that Mary is going to become pregnant outside of wedlock before the Scriptures state her surprise. So why the surprise at the announcement of conception?

 

[ttg]

OK, then. Back to Mary:

Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 ("All have sinned")
Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good."

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, "No one is good but God alone." But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says "The good man out of his good treasure..." So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary's Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.